Westminster Hall Sitting of 12 May 2004

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Railways
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
9.30 am
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that we are debating rail franchises today. I shall try to keep my remarks fairly brief, so that all hon. Members can contribute. The problem with any rail debate is that one has mountains of information, insufficient time to deliver it, and lots of conflicting advice.
This country has about 10,000 miles of railway—about half what it had in the 1960s, before the Beeching cuts. Our railway system receives greater public subsidy now than at any time in the past, yet the service is less efficient, huge profits are being made from it by train operating companies, and there is an unbelievably complicated railways structure. In that respect, I look forward to the Minister's reply to the debate, as he might be able to throw some light on the current structural review and what will come from it.
The Transport Committee recently produced a welcome and informative report on the issues surrounding the structure of the railways and, in particular, franchising. It referred to what the Secretary of State for Transport said about that structure when he launched the rail review. My right hon. Friend said:

"The way in which it was privatised has led to fragmentation, excessive complication and dysfunctionality that have compounded the problems caused by decades of under-investment. Quite simply, there are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities, and it has become increasingly clear that that gets in the way of effective decision making and frequently leads to unnecessary wrangling and disputes. That is no way to run the railways."—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1076.]

I could not agree more.
Twenty-four TOCs and one open-access operator, Hull Trains, operate on our railways, but when one looks at the ownership and operation of the franchises, one sees that quite a small number of organisations run them. The big companies are National Express, First Group, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go-Ahead and Virgin. In the last financial year, the profits made by the companies from running railways in a publicly owned railway system—an activity for which they are very heavily subsidised—amounted to £182 million for National Express, £302 million for First Group, £217 million for Stagecoach, £105 million for Go-Ahead and £122 million for Virgin.
Since 1996, TOCs have received subsidy from the public purse totalling £10 billion. Incredible amounts of money have been poured into the railway system, yet it is being run in a way with which the public are not terribly happy and from which a number of people make huge profits. The Transport Committee considered the
70WH
matter with some care and in some detail, and stated:

"Nearly a third of the franchises were no longer expected to function in the entrepreneurial, risk-taking way that was one of the fundamental justifications for private sector involvement in running train services but simply to function as fee paid agents of the SRA. This indicates the extent of the present malaise."

That is the fundamental problem that we must address.
The railway system was nationalised in 1947 and British Rail put a huge amount of investment into it, including innovative developments such as faster trains and all the rail technology that went with them. There was a strong sense that the railway industry in this country could produce high-quality trains and signalling equipment, and much of that was available for export around the world. However, the Tory Government's obsession with privatisation of the railways after the 1992 general election led to our ending up with an unbelievably inefficient and complicated system in which those who managed to get into the rail industry made huge profits from selling off its assets. Under the present system, the public pay private TOCs that take no risks and are paid even when they are unable to come to an agreement with their staff and industrial action is taken—in other words, the TOCs are paid not to run trains during industrial action. That is an odd state of affairs. There is no incentive for management to establish a decent relationship with the work force.
Many—nearly all—of the franchises on existing lines are due for renewal between now and 2007, so the Minister has important decisions to make. Most of the franchises are privately run, apart from the Connex franchise, which was returned to public ownership because it was so badly run by the private sector. It is curious for a Labour Government to say that a franchise must now return to the private sector: that is nothing but reprivatising something that is better run in the public sector. The public sector has a big role to play and we should consider the possibility of taking over the running of the TOCs when contemplating the situation facing the whole network.
The Secretary of State received a proposal from Transport for London. Everyone accepts that Transport for London has done a good job of coordinating transport policies across London. It has massively improved the bus services and ridership across London, including the operation of East Thames Buses as a public sector company, and it now has control of the London underground, although, unfortunately, it is saddled with the expensive investment proposals that the Treasury has forced upon it. TFL's proposal is to co-ordinate all transport undertakings across London. It makes sense for it to control all rail operations, overground and underground, across the capital. The same is true of regional transport executives elsewhere. Such a change would make for better public involvement in planning and decision making, and would help to overcome problems with the train operating system.
Mr. John Horam: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the broad issues to be tackled in this debate. Apropos the Mayor of London's request to control the whole overground system in London, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with the fact that most of the trains originate far away—

71WH
as far away as the coast—and travel across Kent and Sussex? How would he overcome that part of a mayoral attempt to grab the railways as well as the underground?
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not think that it is right for hon. Members to talk about a mayoral attempt to grab anything. The Mayor was elected to try to improve services in London, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that he should be congratulated on the good job that he has done over the past four years. Yes, trains run from outside London and the majority of inter-city train journeys begin and end in London. Those services would continue, but Transport for London's proposal would allow for much better coordination at local stations and of interchange facilities. It would avoid the nonsensical situation of a plethora of TOCs fighting for track space in and out of stations such as Euston and Liverpool Street—Kings Cross and other stations are less affected by the multiplicity of operators. The proposal would lead to more efficient running of the railway and more public accountability for London's transport. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that, when examining the renewal of franchises, he will at least consider publicly run and operated services in certain areas, so that we regain control of the railway.
The current structure of the railways is bizarre beyond belief. We have a Secretary of State answerable to Parliament who has to fight for money from the Treasury for investment in the railway system and railway services. I applaud the Government for the large amounts of money that they are prepared to invest in the railway system. I welcome that; it is incredible and it is to the Government's credit that they have been prepared to invest such sums. Future generations will benefit from that. However, under the present structure, the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament is somewhat fettered by the fact that the rail regulator seems to have more power than Ministers or Secretaries of State to decide where the money is spent, how it is spent and how much of it is spent. The regulator then passes his views—very regularly, no doubt—to the Strategic Rail Authority, which in turn passes its views to Network Rail, which now owns and operates the track and charges the TOCs for the use of the lines. This country has a parliamentary democracy in which public expenditure is meant to be accounted for to Parliament. That is seriously undermined by the position of the rail regulator and by the amount of money that is poured into TOCs that make huge profits from running a service that they are paid to run in the first place.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: To concentrate for a moment on profit, it is estimated that the companies' collective profit this year will be £170 million, reflecting a profit margin of about 30 per cent. We are simply giving them money.
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The profit margin is excessive by any standards. The railways are not a free enterprise system in which companies make profits by taking risks. There are no risks involved, as long as the companies run things moderately efficiently. When a company is given a franchise to run a railway, it knows that it has an
72WH
income from public funds and that all it has to do is run the service to make a profit. There is no risk involved for the company.
Mr. Greg Knight: Surely there is a risk, because if the company behaves incompetently or inefficiently, it loses the franchise.
Jeremy Corbyn: I did state the caveat that the company has to run the railway and clearly there is some risk that it will lose the franchise if it does so badly, but it has to be pretty had for that to happen. We are not being as tough with the companies as we ought to be. I read the rail press avidly and quite regularly and I have heard of companies that lose a franchise because they have run it badly which then pop up somewhere else running a franchise in another area. The company's record seems to be forgotten when the new franchises are handed out.
I hope that the rail review brings a degree of public accountability for this huge public expenditure and that the Minister will reiterate the view that the railway network is publicly owned, so there should be a publicly owned railway system. I hope also that, in the discussion of franchises during the next few months, the Minister will consider very seriously the need for regional operation and simplicity of operation in and out of major stations, and that he will acknowledge that the train operating companies that have made enormous profits over the past few years are simply not an acceptable example of how we should run a railway.
This country spends more money than any other European country on subsidising a largely privately run railway system, yet in return we get a rather worse service than most other European countries. There must be a lesson there. A comparison of our railway network and that of France is not a happy one from the point of view of people who want a really good and efficient railway system in this country. Railways are the most environmentally friendly, the most efficient, and in many cases the most popular form of transport. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are better run and funded in an acceptable way that is good for the public as a whole.
9.44 am
Mr. John Horam: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a very good attempt to sketch out the broad themes that should be addressed in a general debate about the railways, but he was wrong to concentrate so much on the profitability of particular companies and thereby to denigrate private sector involvement in the railway industry. I believe that a mixed economy for the industry can work perfectly well.
The hon. Gentleman, because he is a London Member of Parliament, will be aware that Connex, a private company, was recently sacked by the Strategic Rail Authority because it was failing to perform. One major reason for that failure was that when it originally set out its stall for the franchise, it underbid for the contract; consequently, the company was losing money year on year. In response, it cut back: for example, it did not paint its stations, and it de-manned some of them. In my constituency, Petts Wood station lost one of only

73WH
two regular members of staff; consequently, there was a lot of vandalism and the station became rundown. That is a tiny example of the way in which the pressure to cut costs resulting from originally underbidding for the franchise caused deterioration in the service and the maintenance of stations.
The SRA decided that Connex could no longer continue and installed its own team to run the railways in south-east London and Kent. Opinions differ on whether there has been an improvement in performance during the intervening six to nine months. I think that there has, but as I discovered when I talked to the managing director of South Eastern Trains recently, the main reason for that is that he gets more money from the Government. He would not tell me exactly how much he gets—perhaps he should have, given that it is a matter of public interest involving public money—but I understand that it is roughly £10 million to £15 million more a year to run the trains in south-east London and Kent. As a result, he can begin to restaff stations, improve trains and enhance performance in a way for which my constituents are grateful.
Despite that, performance is still inadequate. The real issue is no longer whether a company is privately or publicly run. I accept that there was a reprehensible degree of profit-taking after 1997 in particular, but now the issue is how to set subsidy at the right level to give the proper incentive to a company, whether private or public, and its management to perform well. The hon. Member for Islington, North is right in one respect: there are too many chefs trying to cook this particular meal. I agree that it is astonishing that the regulator has so much power. As a democrat, I am amazed that so how much power has been given to a regulator to determine money is spent. The regulator is given a sum of money by the Government and seems to determine how that money is spent, which is wrong. Too many organisations are involved in the industry, and the Government have not helped by setting up some more in the past seven years. The review of the structure of the industry should examine the complexity at the top level of decision making. I believe that the structure at the top should be simplified. The vast amounts of public money involved could be far better spent than they are now.
I agree with one thing that the Mayor of London said recently. He said that the capital is being neglected compared with other parts of the country. We know that vast amounts of subsidy are going into regional railways that are very unprofitable, whereas the main lines into London, which carry tens of thousands of commuters every day and on which London depends, have been relatively starved of capital and revenue. That matter should be addressed.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for a long time. He has had some experience of Government and he knows that if he were sitting in my seat he would have heard the cries from all over Britain that the great problem with Government spending is that we lavish money on London. That is a fact, and I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's reaction to that. Perhaps he could
74WH
transport himself for a moment, and imagine that he is an MP from Yorkshire, the north-east or Ceredigion. How would he feel about it then?
Mr. Horam: Mentioning the north-east was rather near the knuckle. I might have taken a different view had I still been the MP for Gateshead instead of for Orpington. None the less, if the Minister considers rationally—I am sure that he will, as he is a rational Minister—the capital spending spread over the country as a whole, he will realise that London has received much less spending than is sensible, given the amount of wealth that it contributes. He might take as an example the amount of money that has been spent on renewing the north-west line and compare it with the amount of money that has been spent on London commuter services.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I do not wish to plead Ceredigion's case too strongly at this stage, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying undermines his earlier statement that he believed in a mixed economy for the railways and that such a system was delivering. He is now underlining why the railways should be a publicly run and funded UK national enterprise. We have a problem in that some lines get sufficient investment and some are profitable because of the number of people who use them, but they do not fit into the wider jigsaw because the industry is so fragmented. Surely we should reconsider a UK basis for the railways.
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake that I traditionally associate with the Labour party. He seems to be saying that an industry that is publicly funded should also be publicly run. I believe that the industry can be run equally well by a public or by a private organisation. However, I do agree that funding should be determined on a UK basis. That is precisely my point. If we were to do that, we would see that London has been underfunded. However, let us get away from the London versus the regions debate—perhaps I have overstressed the issue, and it is obvious that people have different views on it.
Spending money on small improvements that could make a great deal of difference to the performance of the rail companies has been undervalued compared with spending a lot of money on particular lines. For instance, the north-west line, which has taken a huge amount of Government funding, may have been over-financed. There is a need for a better balance across the whole picture. Spending money on small improvements, such as lengthening station platforms so that they can accommodate 10 or 12-car trains, thereby reducing overcrowding on the London commuter lines, might be better than spending huge amounts of Government money on the Pendolino. It is the duty of the Government, not of the regulator, the SRA or private companies, to address that balance. The Government must set the overall pattern of funding.
The Minister will know that my area has seen the sacking of a company and the temporary handing over of railway operations to a public company. It also faces the prospect of the integrated Kent franchise—the new basis on which companies will bid for the Kent area franchise this year. I beg the Government and the Minister to pay some attention to that, as the SRA has

75WH
indicated that it will savagely cut some of the traditional commuter services, for example, by up to two thirds in peak-hour commuter services to some stations in my constituency and by up to a half in other areas. People have built lives, bought homes and taken jobs based on the expectation that a service that has run for 30 or 40 years will continue, even if it is subject to tinkering. I hope that the Minister will not leave such matters to the SRA, which has admitted that it made some mistakes and is reconsidering the situation. but will consider most carefully the pattern of services. He should simplify the overall structure of the industry, and review the amount of subsidy and how it is spent, value for money and, above all, the demand for services from various parts of our country.
9.55 am
Ms Joan Walley: I will be brief, because I know that many hon. Friends wish to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing it. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). We served together on the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that he is very much aware of the environmental benefits that can come from public policy of many kinds, including rail.
The important point about today's debate, which I want the Minister to take away, is that it takes place in the aftermath of the Transport Committee's report. I think that that has a great deal to offer. It should steer and guide the Government towards making sure that, after all this time, we get rail policy right. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about environmental issues, we are living the extreme effects of Tory privatisation. It is taking a long time to put right what the Tories did. We must find a way to put rail transport back together and to link it with other forms of transport, including bus services.
We in Stoke-on-Trent are fortunate in one sense, in that we are on the west coast main line, which has received an enormous part of the public subsidy that we have heard about for the carrying out of essential rail repairs. I thoroughly welcome that. North Staffordshire MPs had a briefing with Virgin Trains on the new timetable, which is to be introduced in September, with new, half-hourly services to London and the new Pendolino services. There will be huge improvements in the speed and the comfort in which we can travel from Stoke-on-Trent on that west coast main line in both directions and down to London. All that is good, but there is no gain without pain. Upgrading repair works are carrying on as we speak. We will have to put up with that.
The wider context is the Strategic Rail Authority review that is now taking place. That is where the good news ends. I will concentrate on one point, which might seem small, but is hugely important to people in north Staffordshire, for their MPs, for the North Staffordshire Rail Promotion Group and for local authorities. Many of us are old enough—or young enough—to remember the Beeching cuts. We have to face up to the possibility of a new round of Beeching-type cuts by stealth as a
76WH
result of the policies of the Strategic Rail Authority, which is introducing a word that I had not come across before: bustitution.
Some may not know what bustitution is. While essential repair works are being carried out, it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a replacement bus service along the route affected. I accept that and I am happy to go from train to bus when I am making a journey. However, my constituents and I are not prepared to accept the Strategic Rail Authority giving strategic instructions to those responsible for the franchises allowing bus services to replace train services along local passenger routes. I am talking about the route from Stoke-on-Trent to Stafford, although I know that routes in the west midlands are similarly affected.
Replacement bus services will run not only during the period in which essential repairs are being carried out to the rail tracks. The SRA has given franchises to operators for long-distance routes that are, they say, much more important than local routes. As a result, bus substitution services will continue, because—surprise, surprise—the new franchise operator needs the rolling stock that we have on our local train services. In addition, the new franchise operator, as determined by the SRA, does not have the trained drivers to operate the local routes. We are told that we will have bus services, without any consultation with local authorities or Advantage West Midlands, which is doing its best to improve the local economy and to link passenger services to congestion problems at a time when, I am delighted to say, there are huge, much needed roadworks in progress on the A500.
I fear that the SRA is not working regionally. It has no presence in the west midlands, so how does it know the economic, transport and sustainability needs of people in the west midlands, never mind north Staffordshire and my constituency? We have heard about public funds and whether they should be spent by publicly owned companies. Accountability is the real issue that must be addressed in the review. Why is the SRA not accountable for the way in which it runs its services? When the line repairs end and bus services give way to rail services as cab drivers on the franchise through Oxford or elsewhere are trained, I am afraid that there will be low demand for local train services—as was the case with local train stations such as Longport in my constituency and Kidsgrove and Etruria in adjacent constituencies. There is a real danger of depressing the demand for rail travel, because people find the prospect of travelling by bus too much to take.
It is simply not good enough for the SRA to substitute bus for rail without consultation. It should not be allowed to get away with it and it should be made accountable. I am delighted that we have had the debate. I hope that the Minister will talk to the SRA and to north Staffordshire MPs to see how we can integrate our rail services with the transport needs of the north Staffordshire economy.
10.3 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to take part in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing it. There is a tradition in Westminster Hall that the Member who opens the debate deals with the broad issues and then everyone piles in with their own local, regional or national agendas, and I am not going to break that.

77WH
Although we may differ about the funding of the franchises, consensus has emerged about accountability. There is a lack of accountability in the present system. The Minister has intimated as much in his comments over the past few weeks, and I look forward to his official reply to the debate.
I shall offer a perspective from Wales. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) offered a perspective of the west midlands, but in Wales we do have a Strategic Rail Authority presence. It has a member who is supposed to be the member for Wales, but that person has no accountability and there is no accountability generally between the National Assembly, the UK Government and the Wales and Borders franchise.
From accountability comes integration. From an environmental and a social and economic development point of view, we want to, see integration between services. I detect from the Government that they are starting to wake up to the lack of accountability for the rail system throughout the UK. I would like to see a two-way process in which there is greater regional accountability for rail and passenger needs, so that the English regions and commuter areas can integrate them, and a greater democratic accountability within Wales, in particular, reflecting the greater accountability that we hope Parliament will have for the whole system in the United Kingdom.
My journey to and from Westminster takes me through about half the franchise regions of the United Kingdom. I have a lot of time to think about these services during the five and a half hours I spend on the train. I am regularly bustituted at either the beginning or the end of my journey, depending on whether I am coming or going. Aberystwyth is at the end of the line, and that is where the bustitution often happens; the train service has to start at Machynlleth or Newtown. The hon. Lady is right in saying that bustitution has increased. We used to talk about integration of services. Initially, rail services would end because it was the end of the line, but buses would then link into neighbouring villages and towns. That was the old idea of bus and rail integration. It now seems to be a t other less palatable way forward.
Other hon. Members referred to the Transport Committee report, and it is appropriate for me to concentrate on the Welsh Affairs Committee report on rail services in Wales. It calls for greater accountability for transport services and railways in Wales and for some transfer of power to the National Assembly. I agree that one cannot transfer power from this Parliament if we do not have it in the first place. The first step is for the Minister to get a bit more power over these services and the railways and then to work out how we can do this at a UK level and with the devolved Governments. The National Assembly recently requested that a Transport Bill for Wales be passed to help it to achieve some of its national objectives for passenger integration.
There is also an ongoing review of the devolution arrangements between the National Assembly and Westminster, prompted by the Richard report, which was published a month ago. That report also had something to say about railways. It was fairly neutral
78WH
about whether there should be further devolution of power, but said that it was obviously possible. The Welsh Affairs Committee report accuses the Strategic Rail Authority of failing in its statutory duties towards the National Assembly and towards Wales. The First Minister of Wales, like MPs from Wales, was not informed of the SRA's decision to cut services in Wales. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned, some backdoor cuts are now happening, such as scrapping the only direct link between the Eurostar service at Waterloo and our national capital in Cardiff. That was cut without any consultation with Welsh MPs, AMs or even the First Minister. There is no attempt at wider consultation.
Although the National Assembly has control over buses and roads in Wales, it has no control over railways at all. A person has been appointed to the SRA—her name escapes me, but she is supposed to be the person from Wales. She is appointed not by the National Assembly but directly by Westminster, and she is not answerable to the National Assembly. The SRA does not have to take direction from the National Assembly about services in Wales, as it does from the Executive in Scotland about services there. The difficulty arises when we try to improve passenger services as a whole in Wales. The National Assembly can do that only by spending more money on roads. That is a rather ridiculous and environmentally unsound way forward. Indeed, the National Assembly has contributed money towards rail services, even though that is not in its remit. Some £2.5 million of the National Assembly's money is going towards rail services at present, yet it has no say about how it is spent. That is crazy.
Let me give an example of which the Minister may be aware: the Dyfi junction in mid-Wales. It is our equivalent of a bottleneck, where two lines come together. A loop is needed to enable hourly passenger services. This is to go from two hours to one hour and is a big step. The National Assembly has come up with the money, but Network Rail does not have the engineers to do the work. We have been waiting for two years, even though the money is available for that service to go ahead.
In a statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government were considering how

"more decisions on public transport, including rail"—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1076.]

could be devolved to the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the regional level in England. The Welsh Affairs Committee report says specifically that we should consider setting up statutory passenger transport boards or consortiums in Wales. That is what we really want. About 3 per cent. of rail investment ends up in Wales, and as Wales has 5 per cent. of the population, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) should not be looking at Wales to get extra resources for his commuter services in London. No doubt someone will point out that we do not have 5 per cent. of the railways, but that was because of Beeching, and we certainly had it historically.
We need transport passenger boards established and the SRA's powers of guidance and direction for Wales to be given to the National Assembly. The Assembly should also be able to appoint directly to the SRA. It is

79WH
about democratic accountability. However the franchises are run, with private or public companies, strategic democratic accountability is needed.
The Welsh rail network links into England, and it is important to remember that we cannot travel by train from north to south Wales without going through England, via Shrewsbury. However, in giving evidence to the Richard commission, National Assembly Minister Sue Essex said that the Labour Assembly Government do not believe that the problems are insurmountable. We can work with the border regions of England to provide a better service for both the English and Welsh, as many of the journeys are back and forth between the two countries.
It is the same situation in London. It is right that the London Mayor wants to take more of a view on these matters and to integrate the system better. However, that should also take into account the fact that all the journeys start and end in London. We face the same problem in Wales, but it is addressable if we put it into the UK context of national investment and consider how the regions of England and nations of Wales and Scotland can come into that.
The issue is really about statutory consortiums and passenger transport boards. That is the prize that we can win in the Welsh context. So many of our public passenger services are bus-based, and we need to integrate them with the relatively few rail services that we have. To give an example, the National Assembly was the first to give free transport to passengers on buses, but as it had no control of the railways, it could not give pensioners even a discount on the trains. That is a sore point in many of the south Wales valleys. I am sure that the Minister, who represents Pontypridd, will be aware of that.
We have some rail safety concerns about the mid-Wales part of the Cambrian line. I know that the debate is about passenger transport rather than rail safety issues, but I want to put it on record that I have great concerns about the Plas Crug railway crossing in Aberystwyth. Now that we have had this debate, I will take the opportunity to raise them in correspondence with the Department, and I hope that the Minister will be aware that many rail users have specific concerns about rail safety in Aberystwyth.
I hope that the debate will give the Minister strength in tackling the issues and winning back more democratic accountability for the public money that has been invested in the railways.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to say that I will not be able to call all those who want to speak, because the Member who initiated the debate obviously wants an adequate reply from the Minister.
10.14 am
Mr. David Drew: There are four interlocking themes that influence the debate on how the railways are, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, lacking accountability. The first theme is the opaqueness of the process and a
80WH
lack of transparency in how the franchise arrangements are undertaken. The second is excessive bureaucracy, with too many organisations fighting over what are good spoils, and causing a great deal of confusion. That links to the third point which is a lack of understanding of what happens to public money, and whether we are getting, to use that dreadful phrase, value for money. Lastly, there is an issue that has not yet been mentioned: the companies' relationship with railway staff. I start with that, as we are all aware of the tragedies and must not underestimate their impact: Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield have had an enormous impact on the rail networks. It is still much safer to travel by rail, but one cannot be unaware of safety concerns.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult job in that respect, because the post-Hatfield experience is one of trying to return to where we were. We are not going forward at present: we are still talking about achieving, by the end of the decade, the level of service that we had before. That is depressing, but I am pleased that this Government are putting money in, and have a view that rail is a service for the future.
Part of the difficulty with the current franchise operation is that those who are bidding have to work out which franchise to apply for. In my part of the world, Wales and West is more likely to go for Wales, and it has been a devil of a job trying to clarify exactly what it intends to do arid who will take on the franchise. It has become so ludicrous that, although First Great Western would be prepared to invest in some of the stations, it will not do so until it is clearly likely to be the successful bidder. There is an interregnum period during which clarity is lacking. Virgin Trains wanted to run through trains from London to Birmingham on the reserve line, but it could not get the slots at Paddington, so it quickly pulled out. That results in customer dissatisfaction. Customers want reliability and accessibility, but the franchise operation is, at best, pretty bloody and far too long, and we are not getting the best out of it.
I want to mention the work force. I welcome the way in which Network Rail has taken back into public ownership—can I use that term?—the responsibility for maintenance. The people who work in the rail industry are—forgive the pun—shunted around, and that does not achieve anything. Sometimes the basic safety case of those working in our railways is insufficient. We want good people in the railways, because safety, reliability and a good service are important.
I have been trying, since I was elected and before, to promote the redoubling of the track between Kemble and Swindon—the Minister will probably despair to hear me say that. We were having good discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority about 18 months or two years ago, but the authority was reorganised and the discussions with local authorities are now in abeyance. The Strategic Rail Authority is not responsible for the franchises, but it should be involved and give guidance. It is not strategic at present: there is an element of power grab. The difficulty is that the privatisation was botched, and we are trying to make good something that is, in many respects, irreparable. I wish my hon. Friend good luck: he is well known for cutting through the bluster and the complete lack of foresight. We need to apply

81WH
public investment correctly, and there is no better time to start than today.
10.19 am
John McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on initiating the debate at a key time in relation to the discussions on the overall structural review that the Government will have before the summer. I also congratulate the Government on having that review: they now have the courage to address the problems and disasters that resulted from privatisation.
Many hon. Members remember the debate about privatisation. Many of the arguments that were advanced by Labour Back Benchers have proved to be accurate. They are as valid today as they were then: time and time again the private sector's woeful performance in the delivery of train services has been demonstrated. Nowhere is that problem worse than in the south-east. Connex is a good example of how poor the private sector can be. I welcome the fact that, with the setting up of South Eastern Trains, the franchise has effectively been returned to the public sector.
We have seen what happened under the Connex regime. When South Eastern Trains took over, a 20 per cent. shortage of station staff was identified, which meant that Connex had been cutting back on station staff, year in, year out, with the consequent risk not only to the service but to the safety of rail passengers. The Minister will know that since the franchise's return to the public sector, there has been a significant improvement in overall service. The all-day punctuality rate on South Eastern Trains has increased by 9 per cent., which is the highest rate of increase of all 10 London and south-east operators.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister—by appearing in a photocall with the Mayor of London in Brent, East, which we all enjoyed—seems to have given his blessing to a new London rail authority, which would be given control of all London's commuter routes. However, I find it remarkable that five of the 10 passenger services are to be refranchised—reprivatised—over the next five years, which flies in the face of a new London authority being able to co-ordinate an overall system for London's commuter trains. In addition, that move reinforces our concern that South Eastern Trains will itself be privatised and the franchise will return to the private sector. We argue that the removal of the requirement to pay shareholder dividends must ensure that more resources can be provided for investment in the service itself. I sympathise with the comments made by the managing director of South Eastern Trains, Michael Holden, who said:

"Bidding for franchises takes management time and time is the most precious commodity we have. We have been able to declutter the agenda and focus everyone on running the railway better."

Given the failure of the private sector in the past and the improvements that are beginning to emerge now, most of us would be astonished if South Eastern Trains were forced to press ahead with reprivatising the service in its area.
We should also listen to what people in the area are saying. The responses to the recent Strategic Rail Authority consultation showed unanimous support for
82WH
retaining the service in the public sector. Passenger groups, trade unions, the south-eastern region TUC, Mark Watts, MEP, who is Labour's transport spokesperson in the European Parliament, Kent county council Labour group, other local and unitary authority Labour councillors, and the London Transport Users Committee were united against the service cuts proposed by the SRA last month, and in favour of maintaining SET as currently constituted. I draw hon. Members' attention to the Maidstone declaration produced last month by Labour councillors in Kent. It pointed out that democratic accountability of the rail network had been lost as a result of privatisation and that public subsidies and passengers' fares were diverted from service improvements. It argued that the rail service in Kent, Medway and south-east London should remain in public hands. The campaign is popular. MPs for the area will be inundated with postcards from local residents who support the retention of the train service within the public sector.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the current rail review to create a framework that stabilises railway provision, ensures adequate resourcing in the long term and maintains management expertise in the public sector. We can then deliver to our constituents the safe, secure and efficient services that they expect.
10.24 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: In my neck of the woods, GNER does a reasonable job on the east coast main line. My main complaint is about the quality of the toilet facilities on the White Rose trains, which are definitely below par, but I pay tribute to the men and women who operate that line to a fairly high standard. It gets me to work each week and back again at the weekend. It is working reasonably well at the moment.
I wish to discuss briefly industrial relations within the passenger services remit of the rail network and the national situation post-privatisation. Will the Minister consider the plight of the work force, who work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to keep the network running? Is he concerned that open, transparent and accountable industry-wide collective bargaining was shattered by privatisation and that industrial relations have worsened as train companies open up pay differentials of thousands of pounds between employees of the same grade working for different companies and between different grades of employee? The Minister will be aware that that is generating a series of disputes that could have been avoided. How would he feel working alongside Ministers of similar rank and performing similar duties, but working much longer hours, having fewer benefits and receiving less money? I think he would not be terribly pleased about it. Does not he agree that under the current disjointed and chaotic system, industrial relations cannot improve, and that less fragmented industrial relations and national bargaining are in everyone's best interests?
Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), most hon. Members present have signed early-day motion 254 on keeping South Eastern Trains in the public domain.
10.27 am
Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this extremely important debate. What has happened to our railways is a national disgrace, which continues to this day, as huge amounts of public money go into private hands to deliver a service that arguably is worse than it was seven years ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken: every one made a useful contribution, and I hope that the Minister will take their points on board. I agree that the root cause of the problem is the appalling way in which the Conservative Government botched rail privatisation. We are living with their legacy today and paying for it through our taxes. The Minister has the thankless task of trying to sort out the problem, but it is his Government's collective responsibility to do so.
The passenger rail franchises under the remit of the Strategic Rail Authority have unfortunately not done a good job. The 18 train operating companies will receive £1.4 billion in subsidy this year, rising to £1.6 billion next year. The Treasury constantly reminds Departments to be prudent because we do not want to go back to the days of boom and bust, but that huge amount of public money is simply not delivering value for money. The Conservative Government's assertion at the time of privatisation was that costs would decrease, but the opposite has happened. The latest statistics available, for the four years to 2001–02, show that staff costs rose by 28 per cent. I suspect that that is not the result of front-line staff being paid decent wages, but the cost of management who often make the problem worse. Other operating costs over the same period have risen by 22 per cent.
The Transport Committee's seventh report "The Future of the Railway" concluded that

"the industry is not fit for purpose."

It stated:

"The SRA appears utterly incapable of managing significant improvements … It is outrageous that astonishingly large sums of taxpayers' money have been used to prop up palpably failing businesses such as the £58 million in the case of Connex. While we accept that failures in the initial franchise process may have been to blame originally, we cannot understand why action was not taken earlier by the SRA."

The SRA should be accountable to the Minister. Why has he not been able to find a way to stop the apparent abuse of taxpayers' money?
The massive increase in rail journeys is welcome, but that welcome is tempered by the massive increase in car journeys and air travel. In the past 40 years, car journeys have increased fourfold and aviation journeys eightfold, so the fact that the number of rail journeys has increased is no cause for complacency. We must get people out of their cars and into trains, but the trains must be able to deliver a decent service. At the moment, things are not getting better; they are getting worse. Rail fares have increased by an average 20 per cent. since 1997, yet the percentage of trains arriving on time has decreased from 89.7 per cent. in 1997 to 80.8 per cent., according to the latest figures. People are having to pay more and to put up with overcrowding at twice the 1997 levels. To use the cliché, the system is a gravy train for certain companies to make a vast profit at the taxpayer's expense and without due accountability.
84WH
A Pacer train with a life of some 30 years costs about £600,000 to replace, yet it costs £144,000 each year to lease one; it would be possible to buy such a train for the cost of leasing it for four years, if the companies were allowed to do so, but they are not. Instead, that money goes straight into the pockets of certain companies—companies that are owned by the big three banks. I declare an interest: I have accounts with Abbey and one with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I cannot blame them or HSBC for the fact that money is given to them so easily and they make huge profits, which stack up at about £170 million each year. It is money for old rope; we are stuffing gold into their mouths. It is time that that stopped, because the return for those banks is calculated to be about 30 per cent. Even a company such as Tesco makes a profit of only about 5 per cent., so how on earth can the Minister justify the banks and the companies owned by them making such returns?
I have the delight of travelling on Virgin trains from time to time when I return to Shrewsbury. An article in The Mail on Sunday on 8 February stated:

"Under the bizarre rules of rail privatisation, operators such as Sir Richard Branson's Virgin are contractually obliged to pay lease charges to rolling stock companies, regardless of whether the locomotives and carriages are used."

Last year, Virgin paid £55 million to lease new state-of-the-art tilting trains—only they were not used. They sat in the railway sidings because they were not ready, yet Virgin's subsidy from the Government increased from £306 million to £371 million, and it made an operating profit of £26.3 million last year.
The long-suffering British public have to put up with the reality of those poor train services. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) said, staff on the front line are desperately trying to make the best of a very bad job, and they should be saluted for what they manage to achieve. Some companies are better than others, but with the new generation of franchises, we must find a way to control costs and ensure, for instance, that there is no automatic extension to a rail franchise after three years simply because modest—at times very modest—targets have been met. There must be a fundamental shake-up based on passenger satisfaction as well as safety, reliability and affordability for passengers.
What has happened after seven years of Labour Government is a national scandal. To their credit, the Government have invested money in the national health service, but they must consider why they are wasting money on the railways when they could invest more in hospitals, schools and fighting crime. We could come up with a decent public transport system using only some of the money that we spend now. Following on from the hon. Member for Cetedigion (Mr. Thomas), a fraction of the profits of extra subsidies in other areas could be used, for example, for a direct rail link from London to Shrewsbury, which would be so wildly appreciated that the Government would reap huge kudos. We would finally have a direct rail link to Shropshire, mid-Wales and the heart of Wales line, which many people want. I make that pitch and I hope that the Minister will answer many of the questions posed today. As the Rail Passengers Council has said, the system is a mess at the moment and there is little confidence that the Government are getting it right.
10.36 am
Mr. Greg Knight: A discussion on rail franchises and the future of our railways is timely. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate and thank all those who have taken part. We have heard from eight hon. Members today, and what a sorry tale they have all told.
Last Sunday, we read in our newspapers about Birmingham Moor Street station, which was apparently officially opened last September after 16 years of lying derelict. It is meant to boost the new Bull Ring shopping centre in Birmingham and sounds like good news; the only problem is that despite the £11 million facelift, it was revealed in the press that no passenger trains will pass through the station until 2007. What on earth is going on? When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he can tell us why there is to he such a long wait before Birmingham Moor Street station is used.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Birmingham Moor Street station. It was certainly open last time I used it. I got off and on a train at that station and there was no problem—it was not a phantom train. I think that he is referring to the refurbished part of the station, which has not yet been opened for trains to complete their journeys at Moor Street.
Mr. Knight: I have not been to Birmingham Moor Street station so I defer—to some extent—to the hon. Gentleman's greater travel experience. However, the Sunday papers said—[HON. MEMBERS: "They could be wrong"]. Yes, they could be wrong, but for the sake of accuracy I shall put on record what many people read in the Sunday papers. We read:

"Birmingham's Moor Street was officially reopened last September after 16 years of lying derelict…But it will stay empty while signalling work is completed."

That is what it said in the press. Perhaps the Minister could confirm either the press report or what the hon. Member for Islington, North said.
Jeremy Corbyn: Or we could all go there.
Mr. Knight: Or we could all go there after this debate.
I was about to confess that I like the Minister, but I was astonished by his comments last week, again printed in a newspaper. I give him the opportunity to deny that he said that the only way to end Britain's love affair with the car and get people using public transport, including the railways, was

"to tax people out of their cars in the same way as the authorities have tried to tax people off cigarettes".

The headline of that article was, "Tax drivers off the road, says transport chief".
Dr. Howells: I did not say that and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say that. The original interview appeared in the Financial Times. The Daily Mail. for its own reasons—God knows what they are—decided to print something different. If he wants me to send him the transcript—luckily the interview was tape-recorded—he can read it for himself. He should not repeat information that is not correct.
Mr. Knight: I am delighted that we have that on the record, and as I rather like the sound of the Minister's voice, I would like a copy of the transcript. I am pleased to hear that denial, because if he had said that, it would have been a kick in the teeth for poor families and people who live in rural areas who have no option but to use the motor car because there are no rail services.
The year began with the Secretary of State for Transport announcing a fundamental review of the rail industry to remove "unnecessary wrangling and disputes" between the various organisations running the railways. Having rightly ruled out renationalisation, he promised to publish by summer proposals that were designed to ensure a more streamlined structure for the railway system with clearer lines of responsibility and accountability.
The review heralds the fifth change in structure in nearly seven years of Labour Government. They came to power promising immediate benefit, but after seven years, as we have heard from many hon. Members, services in many areas are getting worse. One in five trains run late, and work on many new lines has been scrapped. Despite inflation-busting fare increases, commuters face deteriorating services. I fear that the latest review of rail policy is not about finding a better structure for the railways, but about increasing centralisation and political control. Although that would please the hon. Member for Islington, North, it would not please me or solve the problems. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us the likely date of publication of the Secretary of State's review and about any information contained in it that he is at liberty to put in the public domain today.
Part of the key to a modern, efficient railway system is modern, efficient railway stock, and that needs close attention in the Government's rail review. Encouraging more people to travel by train does not simply involve increasing the costs of motoring; the public have to feel comfortable when they make a train journey, and the problem in many areas has been that travelling by train is not reliable, predictable or comfortable.
As hon. Members will know, in February the National Audit Office published a revealing report that indicated that new rail rolling stock was being delivered late. It also warned that the new carriages being introduced into service are less reliable than the old slam-door vehicles that they were designed to replace. The report provides clear evidence that the railway system is something of a shambles. Not only are trains arriving late at the stations, but new trains are arriving late from the factory. Why should the public have to put up with old, uncomfortable and dirty rolling stock while manufacturers take up to two and a half years to deliver new trains? People will clearly not use the railways if they feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
Passengers are also concerned about punctuality. According to the official figures published in March, after seven years of Labour Government nearly a quarter of all trains, and nearly one in three run by some operators, run late. No wonder more than half of voters think that public transport is bad. The Strategic Rail Authority's answer to the problem of punctuality seems to be to make journey times longer, and Network Rail appears to agree. That is not the way to encourage people to use the train.

87WH
I have the honour to represent a constituency that includes the town of Bridlington, which is one of the country's premier seaside resorts. Passengers who want to travel to Bridlington from Hull and back again have recently been faced with longer rail journey times. I submitted a written question to the Minister, who passed it on to Network Rail. I received a reply from Victoria Pender, the company's group director for government and corporate affairs, on 23 April. In that letter, she admits that there are stretches of rail track on which the speed limit has been reduced primarily or solely to prolong the life of the track. She reveals some of the routes involved, including Wigan to Kirkby, Newcastle to Carlisle, the Barton upon Humber branch, Allington Junction to Boston, and Hull to Bridlington and Same. If the Minister wants people to use the train, why do passengers on some routes face longer journey times, imposed not for safety reasons but because those running the railways are trying to prolong the life of the track? That is not the way forward, and I hope that the Minister will address that matter. If he cannot provide a detailed reply this morning, I hope that he will write to me.
The Government's proposal to spend £26 billion upgrading the rail network is not guaranteed to improve the system. We must see that the money is properly targeted. It is not only the official Opposition who are concerned about the state of British railways; the Transport Committee, which is chaired by a distinguished Labour Member, has also expressed concerns. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said recently:

"The government has had years to address the problems of the railway but has failed to take effective action."

I agree. The Committee's report shows that thus far the Government have let passengers down, performance has got worse and the network is in turmoil. Does the Minister accept the conclusions of the Transport Committee's report? If he does not, perhaps he will tell us with which of the conclusions he disagrees and on which he will take action. Although any organisation needs a period of stability, change must be brought about to the structure of the railways, and it will be interesting to see what the Secretary of State announces later this year.
Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that railways need private sector investment. That sector in turn needs the confidence of knowing that the railway network has stability, independent regulation and a simplified structure. Grand Central Railway Company commences passenger services between Newcastle, Manchester and Preston this summer. It has published its vision of providing

"affordable, diverse and improved journey opportunities, and attracting new customers to the rail network."

It says that, unlike many rail franchise operators, it will not seek subsidies from the Government and will operate trains on an entirely commercial basis. Subsidy is necessary for some routes, but I hope that the Government will monitor best practice. It should not be a regional secret; it should be commonplace and encouraged.
The Government cannot escape the fact that they have spent almost eight years promising a better railway system but have failed to come up with the goods.
88WH
Performance is bad, it is getting worse and after almost eight years many people feel that the Government have let them down. I sty to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) that to blame my party for the structure that was put in place on privatisation 10 years ago will not wash when for seven of those 10 years another party has been in power,. The buck is now with new Labour. So far, it has failed to deliver on our railways.
10.49 am
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. I enjoyed his contribution very much, and I especially admired the fortitude with which he admitted poring over rail magazines. In the 10 months since I have been in this job, having to pore over them has changed me completely. I can no longer relax on rail journeys—I find myself looking out of the window to see why there is a temporary speed restriction, whether the clutter on the side of the line has been properly secured, which train is going past, and so on. Doing so becomes an obsession and turns people into anoraks.
My hon. Friend raised a lot of important issues. I enjoyed listening to the other interesting contributions to the debate, but I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's points as this is his debate and he needs proper answers. There is no question but that we needed to institute the rail review. I know that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will have a pop at it and he is quite right to do so—we would do the same if we were in opposition. However, as all hon. Members who spoke made clear, there are many things that are wrong with the structure of the rail industry. We could do a much better job. Hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber expressed unhappiness over how some of the money has been spent in the past 10 years. They want greater clarity and a guarantee that it will be spent better in future.
There is also no question but that there have been some strange management practices in the industry in the past 10 years. One only has to consider, for example, what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) called the north-west railway, but which is in fact the west coast main line. When I took up my post 10 months ago, the cost of that project was about £13 billion. It is now reckoned to be about £7.6 billion. That is mainly because the management of Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority have at long last got a grip on expenditure. There is no question but that expenditure on that vast project was out of control.
The hon. Gentleman said that we tend to undervalue what we can do with relatively small amounts of money to improve the railway system for passengers. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has seen improvements at one of the nation's most important rail-bus interchanges, at Finsbury Park. I have used that station for many years and have seen great improvements there. However, my hon. Friend is right still to be concerned about the relationship between Network Rail and Transport for London, and about

89WH
whether the project will pushed through with the energy and vigour that it requires. I hope that we can help with that.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will ensure that the rail operators, Network Rail and the SRA actively co-operate with Transport for London to bring the project to fruition? It is a great idea, but needs a bit of push.
Dr. Howells: I certainly undertake to do what I can. My hon. Friend's question—or plea—has prompted a few other questions about what levers the Government have and how we can add value by paying huge amounts of taxpayers' money to promote a better railway. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked a similar question.
The industry must be much more accountable. The SRA has lately come to admit that its relationship with the devolved bodies, MPs and the regions could have been much better. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) talked about how some decisions should have been signalled long before they were taken. I am sure that Richard Bowker has taken that point on board. After all, one of the primary functions of the SRA in trying to create a national strategy for the railway industry must be to understand that the industry is made up of thousands of incremental elements and that it is to do with local stations and local services. It has handled that task with a degree of understanding and perspective that was previously missing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was especially concerned about integration and what should be happening inside London. Despite some of the comments—I share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, when he talked about Wales—there are many examples around the country of passenger transport executives that have achieved good co-ordination between railways, tram systems and buses. We can learn a great many lessons from those examples. London, quite naturally, is looking for a degree of control or at least a way forward that involves partnership.
We are talking about how we achieve better integration and how we face passengers better, because that is really what the railways are about. Very often, we become obsessed with questions of structure. As the hon. Member for Orpington reminded us, there is
90WH
almost a macho obsession with how much we spend and with saying, "Look at this great project! Look at that wonderful new fleet of rolling stock!" The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that it is important that we get new rolling stock, and we are getting it—factories are working flat out to produce new rolling stock—but the process has exposed a great many shortcomings within the network and a great lack of co-ordination, the most absurd example of which was that we started to get new rolling stock in the old southern region, only to find that there was not enough electricity in the system to run the trains, which, unlike the old slam-door trains, have electric doors and air conditioning. I dare say some even have coffee makers. Such trains draw more electricity off the track. To have those wonderful new trains being put into sidings until the billion-pound project to upgrade the power supply has been completed, or phased in, was absurd. Hon. Members are quite right to highlight such examples.
The rail review is a very serious enterprise. We hope to report in July, and we will try to institute a system that will meet some of the demands that have been made in this Chamber for a simpler system of command, with shorter command structures, under which the needs of people will be reflected much more closely in the way in which decisions are reached. I want to ensure that the aspirations of people in London, Wales, Scotland and the regions of England are more clearly reflected in the decisions that are made by the management of the rail network.
South Eastern Trains has been mentioned several times. The facts must be stated: Connex did not have its franchise removed because it was a relatively poor performer; it had it removed because the SRA was very unhappy with the financial governance of the company. The hon. Member for Orpington hinted at that. South Eastern Trains management—Michael Holden is a very
good manager—are doing a pretty good job with a system that is one of the most complex in the United Kingdom, and the integrated Kent franchise, as it will be known, will be an improvement on the existing system. We are sensitive to the aspirations of the people of Kent, who have suffered long from the rail service that has been offered, and we are determined to give them a better service.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North for raising these issues. The debate has given many of us an opportunity to express heartfelt concerns about the current system.

Asthma
11 am
Mr. Bob Laxton: There are several good reasons—one of them is certainly a good reason—why I am pleased that I have secured this debate. First, when I entered the House, I became a member of the all-party asthma group because, along with many other hon. Members, I happen to be an asthmatic, and have been all my life. The second reason was the document published by Asthma UK the other week entitled "Living on a Knife Edge", which presents some useful statistical information about the impact that asthma has on society and the life and well-being of asthma sufferers.
Some of the statistics in the report are pretty dramatic. In this country, about 5.1 million people have asthma and 2.6 million of those suffer from the severe symptoms of asthma. That figure comprises about 2 million adults and about half a million children. The report shows the increase that took place between the 1980s and 1990s in the prevalence of asthma. It increased by 114 per cent. among males and no less than 165 per cent. among females.
In the report, Asthma UK makes the point that one in six of the individuals who suffer from asthma have weekly attacks so bad that they are unable to speak. Fortunately, my asthma is under control. As a Member of Parliament, one can hardly imagine anything worse than suddenly finding one could not speak—although some would argue that too much speaking takes place here, and I am as guilty of that as anyone.
What impact does severe asthma have on individuals? Many people's lives are—I was going to use the word "inconvenienced", but that is inadequate: it is far more severe than that. Despite taking large doses of medication, many people live disjointed and distressed lives as a result of asthma. Many people have it so badly that they are constantly being hospitalised. They are put on ventilators, they suffer from breathlessness, and so on.
Of course, there is no cure for asthma. When I was 18, the original treatment I received from a military doctor was a choice between benzedrine and ephedrine. These were heart stimulants: quite dangerous and powerful drugs that increase one's heart rate and take the pressure off one's chest. They are not nice medications and have some pretty unpleasant side effects. When, at the age of 30, my asthma suddenly became worse, I was very fortunate that in my constituency in Derby lived an individual by the name of Dr. Harry Morrow-Brown. I became very friendly with Harry. He was a consultant at the chest clinic and was—and still is—one of the world's foremost experts on the connection between allergy and asthma.
Harry, who is about 85 now, is still involved in running a charity in Derby: the Midlands Asthma and Allergy Research Association. It carries out pollen counts, so that people know about the effects of pollen and how it can trigger allergies, which can trigger asthma. He undertook a series of tests on me. He established—which was a bit traumatic at that stage of my life—that I was allergic to hops, malt and brewers' yeast. Some of those listening to the debate will know that those are—with the exception of water—all the
92WH
ingredients in beer. Coming from Derby, just down the road from the brewing centre of the world, Burton-on-Trent, and as a moderate consumer of the finest Bass and Marston's Pedigree, which I still drink on occasion, it was dramatic 13r me, because I had to knock off drinking beer for two or three years.
Later, my asthma became more under control. Harry was keen on pushing the use of the preventers—steroid-based inhalers—that the medical profession at the time said would not work and were useless drugs. However, he put me on one and it has made my asthma eminently more tolerable. My asthma is under control. I think that such medication has made a huge change to asthmatics. However, while one can use preventers or relievers, there is no cure.
Let us consider the public perception of asthma. What do people who are not asthmatic think about it? Well, they think that it is a bit of coughing and wheezing, hacking and barking, and that the sufferer will get over it. Many people think that it is associated with childhood. "You have it as a child," they might say, "but don't worry, when you're 18 or 19, you'll grow out of it." The "Living on a Knife Edge" report illustrates the fact that, in some cases, people with severe asthma are embarrassed by it, because some people think that their breathlessness is something to do with obesity—that could not, of course, apply in my case—lack of exercise and being unfit.
The economic and human costs are immense. Each year, 18 million working days are lost. On average, it takes a week to recover from a severe asthma attack. There are 71,000 more hospital admissions for asthma each year. Asthma costs the NHS about £680 million a year. Emergency hospital admissions for asthma cost the NHS about £46 million every year, and 80 per cent. of that expenditure is spent on the 20 per cent. whose asthma is most severe.
Asthma affects people's relationships and family life. The "Living on a Knife Edge" report—I would recommend that anyone who is interested in the subject reads it—graphically illustrates cases of individuals whose family life has been disrupted, including teachers and people in all sorts of professions. Of those severe asthma sufferers that the report details, 44 per cent. feel that their social life is restricted; in particular, they feel unable to go out to pubs and bars because of the smoky atmosphere. A very graphic statistic is that more than 1,400 people die front asthma each year.
Andrew George: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the excellent case that he is making, drawing on his own experience. I am also grateful to the Minister for attending the launch of the Asthma UK report last week on world asthma day. That was much appreciated.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in supporting early-day motion 1082—which draws attention to the fact that 90 per cent. of asthma deaths are preventable—we need to concentrate not on the failure of the individual but on the need to ensure that asthma is properly managed and understood in both the medical profession and the community, to ensure that fewer preventable deaths from asthma occur?
Mr. Laxton: I could not agree more. I was making the point that the public perception of asthma is that it is to do with unfitness or obesity and that sufferers should go out and get some exercise. The hon. Gentleman is spot on; the public perception is distorted. People do not really understand the effects of asthma unless there is someone with asthma in their household.
Equally, many people, including me, have well-managed asthma. My GP, who looks after me extremely well, runs very effective asthma surgeries and clinics, which I regularly attend. However, many people struggle without knowing what medication is available. They do not get regular checks and are not registered with GP practices that undertake surgeries and clinics specifically to deal with asthmatics. The EDM highlights that. I will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the issue.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend makes a cogent case. Like him, I am an asthmatic. What he is saying is crucial as we move to a new generation of medicines. Does he agree that the issue is not just which medicines are available but how people use them? The Government must be attuned to the need for services for people who move on to new medicines, to ensure that they get the full benefit of them.
Mr. Laxton: Again, I could not agree more. There are new medicines and new delivery systems for them. Such systems are crucial, particularly for children and elderly people who sometimes find it difficult to get the correct dosage from some devices. There are mechanisms and pieces of kit that enable the correct dosage to be delivered. That is why it is important that some GP practices raise their game to ensure that their patients are aware of what is available to and appropriate for them and that they have regular check-ups.
What have the Government done and what is their position? A report on allergies has been produced by the Department of Health. It states that they are on the rise, that allergy services need improvement and that the record investment in the NHS should help. A great deal of work has been done by the Food Standards Agency to tackle allergies: better labelling, funding of research to investigate the causes of food allergies, and so on. However, I ask whether that is really enough to tackle asthma.
What do the all-party group on asthma and I think the Government should be doing? Respiratory disease is not included in the Government's national strategy for health. The British Lung Foundation has said that it finds that astounding. It believes that because diseases targeted in the national service framework are better funded, respiratory illness is "doubly disadvantaged".
I would like the Government to invest more in asthma care. Most asthma care is provided through primary care, often in dedicated clinics. However, uptake of such services is poor, at around 3 per cent., and few people have a personal asthma plan, which is important in controlling the affliction they live with. It makes a real difference if people with severe asthma see their specialist or GP at least once a year, even though it costs three times as much to treat a patient with stable asthma as opposed to one whose asthma is more difficult to control.
94WH
We should invest more in asthma research. The Government spend some £3 million a year, which only equals the amount spent by the charitable organisation Asthma UK. We must compare the amount that goes into research with the nearly £50 million spent on emergency hospital admissions for asthma. An even starker comparison would be with the £680 million the NHS spends each year to treat asthmatics. We need to understand what causes asthma so that we can develop better strategies to prevent its onset and provide better treatment for those who continue to suffer from it.
Comprehensive services for asthma care do not exist. They must be developed. There are evidence-based guidelines for the care of asthma, but they remain voluntary. The Government must ensure that they give official support to future guidelines.
Finally, there is one thorny issue about which we, as a nation, must make up our minds. The Government and others, including me, are studying New York's experiment with banning smoking to see what the social, economic and financial fallout will be. Closer to home, some of us are looking closely at what is happening in southern Ireland. So, my final point—there is a big question mark after it, and I shall be more than interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it—is whether we should be somewhat more positive about banning smoking in public places.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on securing the debate and, more important, on taking time to work on asthma and on the all-party group. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on their work on asthma. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for St. Ives, who is the chairman of the all-party group, missed the reception that I attended last week because his train was held up. I guess that that explains why he was here during the previous debate to make clear to Ministers his views about the train service from his constituency.
When people first become Members of Parliament, they are assailed by invitations to join all-party groups. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, I decided to concentrate on groups that I thought were worthy. Some time later, I discovered that all my friends were jetting around the world because they had joined the all-party Hawaii group or the all-party Philippines group instead. However, he and I will get our reward in heaven, and his constituents will reward him for his work on behalf of the all-party group on asthma and asthmatics throughout the country.
The Government are making good progress in improving treatment and care for people with asthma, and I welcome the opportunity to put our position. I also warmly endorse my hon. Friend's praise for the work of Asthma UK and its recently published report, "Living on a Knife Edge". I am glad that Asthma UK recognises in that report that Health Ministers do, indeed, take asthma seriously.
I should emphasise that the Government recognise how distressing and debilitating asthma can be for individuals, their carers and their families. It is the most

95WH
common chronic disease in the UK and affects all age groups. I assure hon. Members that we share my hon. Friend's concerns about improving the lives of people living with this condition, and we are taking action in five broad areas.
First, the new general medical services contract includes a specific quality indicator for the treatment and care of people with asthma. It builds on the chronic disease management programme in the existing contract. GP practices must keep records and effectively manage and review patients with asthma to qualify for additional quality payments.
Secondly, new guidance on the appointment of GPs with a special interest in respiratory medicine, including asthma, was published in April 2003. It was written in conjunction with a range of experts, including Asthma UK and the British Thoracic Society. GPs with a special interest have a pivotal role as clinical leads within primary care. They provide clinical expertise and leadership in developing integrated local services that best meet patients' needs. GPs with a special interest in asthma and respiratory disease will carry out consultations with patients who are referred by other practitioners for advice on clinical management. That will help patients by reducing the need to wait for referral to a hospital specialist, and it may help avoid the need for admission to hospital.
Thirdly, a national service framework for children is being developed to set standards for the care of children and young people and ensure that they have access to good-quality care. Those new standards will help to ensure better access to care and a smoother progression in the provision of services for children—from the initial contact with the national health service at a GP's surgery or NHS hospital, through to social services support. Our aim is to enable children to have access to modern health and social care services that are designed to meet their needs and that involve them and their carers in choices about their care. Furthermore, we have agreed that asthma, as one of the most common childhood conditions, will be used as a key exemplar illustrating how the standards should be applied to ensure that services are effective and that they meet children's needs.
Fourthly, the national primary care development team is working to improve primary care for patients with respiratory disease, including asthma, as part of the largest health improvement programme in the world. The team supports front-line primary care clinicians and primary care trust managers in developing skills and techniques to bring about significant improvements in the management of chronic disease for their patients.
Already, the highly successful work of the practices involved in the programme has cut waiting times to see a GP by more than 70 per cent. The programme, which initially involved 20 primary care trusts and 100 practices, is currently being rolled out through the 11 NPDT centres to every primary care trust in the country.
Fifthly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced in March his vision for a new deal for people suffering from long-term chronic diseases such as asthma. Under those plans, specialist teams
96WH
across the country will provide advice, care and treatment for chronic disease. We will launch case management demonstration sites within each strategic health authority.
Central to good chronic disease management is an effective partnership between the patient and the care providers, with the aim of maximising self-care—something that is particularly important for people with asthma. The latter will benefit from the expert patients programme that is currently being piloted in primary care trusts around the country. That provides NHS-based training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic illnesses.
I think that the five key initiatives that I have outlined will help people with asthma, but in his excellent speech my hon. Friend raised a number of points on which he hoped for additional Government action. For example, he was concerned that respiratory disease does not feature in the Government's national strategy for health. As I have already said, the children's national service framework is using asthma as a key exemplar condition. I assure him that although we are not yet committed to a new wave of national service frameworks, we will, if there are to be more of them, consider the case for asthma.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the cost of treating asthma absorbs substantial NHS resources. He asked for more investment in services for people with the condition. Although we have not made any extra funding available specifically for asthma services—because we are now shifting the balance of power, and we expect primary care trusts to make local decisions about local priorities—the considerable extra resources that we are investing in the NHS will improve services for all patients, including those with asthma and other respiratory diseases.
My hon. Friend also asked for greater investment in research into the condition. As has already been noted, total Government spending on research into asthma was approximately 3.2 million for 2002–03. However, that is not the full picture. In the previous year—I am sorry that I do not have more recent figures—£12.2 million was spent on research into respiratory disorders overall. The Department of Health is running a £1 million research programme on air pollution and health. The Medical Research Council, which prioritises research on the Government's behalf, is always happy to consider good-quality research projects that are suggested to it.
In addition, the Department manages the national health service research and development programme to deliver improvements in medicine and health, which is undertaken in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings. The Department works closely with Asthma UK on the NHS research and development programme on asthma management, which provides funding to individual projects in hospitals and universities across the country and will receive a grant of £5 million over six years.
My hon. Friend also referred to evidence-based guidelines for the care of those with asthma. Primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning comprehensive services to meet the health needs of the populations that they serve. We expect them to commission services in line with evidence-based good

97WH
practice guidelines. The health care standards, which will be published by the Secretary of State for Health in the summer, will require health care organisations to have systems in place to ensure that treatment and care are based on agreed best practice. Services should be based on what appropriately assessed research evidence has shown provides an effective outcome for patients' needs.
My hon. Friend also added his voice to that of Asthma UK in highlighting smoking as a serious public health issue. He did not call for a ban on smoking in public places, but he asked whether I was prepared to go that far. I am not, at present, because we are having a consultation, and it is not right for Ministers to prejudge consultations, but his views and those of Asthma UK will certainly be taken into account. Smoking is a known trigger for asthma. Around 80 per cent. of people with asthma say that other people's tobacco smoke makes their symptoms worse, so we are working to educate parents about the effects of smoking not only on their health but on that of their children, and to help them give up through our successful smoking cessation programmes. "Smoking Kills", the Government's White Paper on tobacco, includes support for the licensed hospitality industry's charter to improve facilities for non-smokers in pubs, bars and restaurants, as well as consultation on an approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace.
The Government have consistently said that smoke-free enclosed workplaces and public places are the ideal, and have encouraged employers and managers of public places to introduce smoke-free policies. Progress is being made, but we want to see more. We are particularly keen to see more progress from the hospitality sector and look forward to the proposals that they will make later this month when representatives will meet Ministers.
I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, and our constituents, especially those with asthma, will be reassured that the Government are committed to improving the treatment and prevention of asthma in the NHS. I recognise that there is still some way to go, but we are making good progress. My hon. Friend has set out an eloquent and important case for why we must concentrate on the issue—not least because I should not like to keep him from his beer for very long. The more we can do, the more we shall try to do: we can do more and we shall do more.
Progress is being made across the board. I am committed to driving that progress, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, the all-party group and Asthma UK to achieve that goal. It is an important subject, and the Government are determined to put effort and drive into ensuring that there are improvements.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Postal Deliveries
2 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Royal Mail Group is in a mess; there is little doubt about that. The number of post offices that have been closed and the number of post offices that remain under threat show that our constituents have reason to be greatly concerned. According to the pre-tax profit figures, Royal Mail made a profit of £750 million in 1997–98. However, in 1999 it made a loss of £184 million, in 2001–02 it made a loss of £1.1 billion, and last year it made a loss of £600 million.
It is not only those loss figures that concern our constituents but the recent changes both to the post office network and to delivery arrangements. I do not intend to spend a lot of time on the post office network, because the Minister and I have exchanged views on that on a number of occasions. I simply wanted to put my concern on the record. I know that many hon. Members share that concern. I have received a letter from Jonathan Sheppard, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Bassetlaw, who is worried about the threats to the rural network, and the fact that no guarantees are available for its future.
The Government's policy is that the Post Office should move over to a single delivery. A written answer from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, dated 6 May 2004, reads:

"Once the single delivery changes have been made, the target will be for everybody to receive his or her post by lunchtime. Many households will receive their post at the same time as before; others, however, will receive their post later in the morning."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1730W.]

The single delivery is leading to great inconvenience for both my residential and my business constituents. I have been receiving an increasing number of letters recently and I shall quote from a few of them. Mrs. Janet Carr of Ningwood Hill writes:

"I wonder if you are aware just how discontented your constituents … are with the postal services … We are now getting letters at about 1pm, 2:30pm, 3pm even twenty to four (twice). It is outrageous of the P.O. to say that people don't mind what time their post arrives … We do care, we do have urgent matters to deal with—how can we get a letter at 3:40 and get a reply in the post the same day?"

Mrs. Carr has since informed us that most days she does not receive her post until 2.40 pm. Mr. Terry Nigh of Shanklin writes:

"Our own situation is causing us considerable problems at present. Deliveries over the past two or three years have become more and more erratic but it now appears that the Post Office is hell bent on committing commercial suicide."

Miss Claire Goldsmith of Yaverland writes:

"I feel annoyed about the letter received from Royal Mail about two weeks ago re: changes to mail deliveries. I have no recollection of there being a second daily delivery in Yaverland since 1975 when I became a resident here. Now it appears we will have to accept another inconvenience of one delivery (LATE) but costs remain the same."

99WH
Mr. Paul Garbett of Garbetts Accountants in Brading writes:

"Until recently we had a very good delivery service with a delivery between 9am and 10am every morning … I appreciate that public sector entities need to restructure to meet the competitive challenges of the 21st Century … surely this should only be done in a controlled manner which is going to improve service levels rather than demonstrably reduce them as has happened … In addition to the late delivery times we are also experiencing delays in transit of items in the post."

An example of that is a warning letter to a client about unpaid tax, issued on 21 April 2004 and received on 27 April 2004.

"The time of receipt was after 10 am so it gives less than 24 hours before the loam on 28 April deadline given in the letter. To give someone a seven day warning and then take six days to deliver it seems to be worthy of the best despotic practices from more dubious states".

When I received those letters I wrote to Postwatch on 8 March, and received a reply on 19 March, dated 18 March, saying that the matter had been taken up with the Royal Mail Group. On 6 April, Postwatch wrote to me again, saying that it was

"still waiting for the Royal Mail Group to reply"

to its inquiry. I received that letter on 13 April. On 14 April, I received a reply from Royal Mail, which told the customer—that meant me—that I could expect to receive my post between 9.15 and 9.45 am. However, my concern was not only for myself but for my constituents.
Without writing individual letters on behalf of all my constituents, I could not get answers for my constituency. I therefore tabled a parliamentary question:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make electronically accessible the Royal Mail's estimates of delivery times for the Isle of Wight under the single delivery reforms, broken down by postcode."—[Official Report, 30 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1365W.]

It was clear from the letter that the Royal Mail had sent to me that it could plug in a postcode and bring out a delivery time. The Minister said that he would ask the chief executive to reply, but so far the chief executive has not done so.
I did not realise that this was anything more than a local problem until The Southern Daily Echo newspaper in Southampton carried a report on 26 April headed "Get this chaos sorted say MPs." It referred to one MP who had received nearly 60 complaints from disgruntled residents and was

"now gearing up for a head-to-head meeting with under-fire Royal Mail bosses."

Since I do not speak in Sunspeak, the article reports me as being merely

"staggered when the organisation admitted it could not deal speedily with his inquiries—because the Royal Mail's own reply had become stuck in the postal backlog."

I then raised the matter with the Leader of the House—I did not realise that he used to work for the Union of Communication Workers. He told me that

"most union members argued that the second delivery was a protection to ensure that the first delivery arrived on time."—[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1018.]

I suspect that the Minister would agree that it seems extravagant to have staff on stand-by just to ensure that
100WH
they get back in time to deliver a second delivery in which only 4 per cent. of post is delivered. I accept that the Post Office may therefore think that it can use its staff more effectively.
However, I fear that the changes that have been made have been for the benefit more of the staff than of the customers. Customers do not like receiving their letters at lunchtime; most prefer to receive them earlier. Most customers do not like misdeliveries either. I have forgotten the figure—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will have it—but there are something like 14 million—
Michael Fabricant: 14.5 million.
Mr. Turner: Yes, 14.5 million letters are misdelivered every year. The consequence of late and misdelivered letters is that business orders are cancelled, birthday cards do not arrive on time, operations are missed, appointments are not kept, giros are not received, postmen get a lot of unjustified abuse and their morale is therefore, justifiably, low, and frustration is felt by many.
I shall give two examples of misdeliveries. One is from an adventure holiday firm in Gwynedd, which claims that losing vital mail in the post could have cost the company up to £150,000 in potential business. Rhys Davies of Outlook Expeditions in Bethesda claims that a mailshot campaign reached only half the addresses it targeted. He said:

"Following up leads by phone, we discovered that about half our letters had never arrived … Out of 70 letters, 40 to 50 wouldn't turn up, people were sending them out again and they still wouldn't turn up."

Peter Carr, of Postwatch Wales, said:

"Our message to customers is that if Royal Mail do not know about the problem they cannot fix it."

However, the problem is that customers do not know about the problem of undelivered post either, unless they ring up the person who is supposed to have received the letter and ask them whether they have received it. Most of us have better things to do with our time than that.
My second example is from an article in The Sunday Times of 2 May. It concerns patients in Newtownabbey, who missed hospital appointments because people in neighbouring blocks of flats had received each other's mail for more than a year.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems is that when constituents complain to us as their representatives, it is hard for them to prove the non-existence of a letter that they thought that they were going to receive? Often, the Post Office asks questions such as: is the constituent sure that the letter was ever sent? Sometimes, trying to pursue these cases is like trying to convince the Post Office that it needs to deliver to a postal address on Mars.
Mr. Turner: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Being able to persuade someone that a letter has been sent and lost in the post requires all one's ingenuity and credibility.

101WH
Postwatch responded in a letter to The Daily Telegraph on 30 April headed, "The postman only rings once, if at all". That letter was about the pilot schemes that have been undertaken. According to Kay Dixon, the chairman of Postwatch Greater London:

"In east London, the only pilot for Greater London, it became clear that there were major problems, ca using disruption and inconvenience to the local community."

I am sure that the Minister, whose constituency is in east London, will be familiar with that, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), the shadow Minister for London. The letter continues:

"Following discussions and representations, Postwatch Greater London received assurances from the Royal Mail that it had learnt from the experience of the pilot schemes."

Kay Dixon goes on to say:

"We are disappointed that, despite more than two years of planning, the Royal Mail's implementation of single deliveries is causing problems for customers."

Stephen Robinson, also writing in The Daily Telegraph, said:

"In our corner of north-west London we have lost not our second delivery, but our first. The post no longer comes at 8.20 am over the first cup of tea, as it used to, but around noon … We have lost the benefits of overnight mail delivery."

On the evening of 30 April, there was a programme on Channel 4 called "Dispatches". It was partly in response to that programme that I raised that question with the Leader of House. Again, I quote:

"On camera, the programme captured letters lying on the floor, untrained staff wandering lost through the streets as they tried to deliver mail, untrained managers, and working practices reminiscent of the 1970s. One worker tells the undercover reporter that he is working too hard, saying 'make it stretch', meaning he should sort letters more slowly. Managers are alleged to have to pay 'ghost overtime' to get people to work the eight hours they are supposed to, otherwise they go home three-and-a-half hours early. Postal workers are caught on camera playing football in the office, one running a business selling mobile phones and SIM cards while he is supposed to be working, and another allegedly selling counterfeit trainers."

According to a report in The Daily Telegraph on 3 May, residents of Southwark have formed a protest group in response to the quality of service. We have heard about the problems of late delivery, of misdelivery and of sorting offices being used for illicit recreational purposes. Now we move on to the quality of the service. According to the article, several of the victims who spoke to The Daily Telegraph feared reprisals from the criminals involved in the theft of cheque books, credit cards, parcels and letters in what they describe as a "Third World postal service". I will provide brief examples. One person was telephoned by his bank to ask if he had written a five-figure cheque. Another person said that electricity bills and mortgage documents had not arrived for eight months. Someone else had had envelopes embossed with the logo of design houses, such as Change, opened.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on rightly apologising to the House on 6 May, echoing the apologies of the chairman of Postwatch. Among others, the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) intervened to outline the difficulties that they and their constituents had experienced. Adam Crozier, the Royal Mail chief executive, announced the following day that he would take day-to-day responsibility for the letter business.
102WH
I suspect that the problem is that the Royal Mail has been asked to go through a long-overdue change far too quickly and is having difficulty in implementing it—and I ask whether there is a regulatory failure as well. For example, I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 26 March about the times at which postal deliveries were received. The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services replied that the licence granted by Postcomm does not specify the time at which the daily delivery to every household has to be made. Consequently,

"data on delivery percentages at particular times of the day are not available."—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1110W.]

Earlier this week, it was suggested that money should be withheld from the Royal Mail Group if it failed to meet the delivery time, with which I wholeheartedly concur. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) suggested that a reduction in the managers' salaries would be appropriate, and the Chairman replied that that was a matter for shareholders. But there is only one shareholder: Her Majesty's Government, who are represented in this debate by the Minister, who should respond to his hon. Friend and say who should lose. I hope that it will not be the customer.
I gave notice to the Minister about my final point: the need for guarantees of the resilience of the postal service in the northern and east midlands regions, where all-postal ballots will take place early next month. It is absolutely essential that all the ballot papers—every single on—are delivered to the correct address and that every ballot paper posted back to the returning officer is delivered on time, including those posted by close of play the night before the election.
It is also essential that Postcomm monitors and reports the Post Office response to those requirements very carefully, so that improvements can be made in time for the regional government referendums planned for later this year. I hope that the Minister will guarantee that that will be done.
Anthony Trollope is probably the most famous former employee of the Post Office. In his autobiography, he described

"bringing everywhere with me an earlier, cheaper, and much more regular delivery of letters."

However, we now seem to have returned to pre-Trollopian times, and a horse-and-cart service cannot compete in the electronic age.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not been an employee of the Post Office since 1970.
2.17 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing this important and timely debate. From the Minister's point of view it will perhaps be a difficult debate to respond to, as many of the issues raised will be operational. However, we hope for guidance from his perspective on the strategic importance of Royal Mail and on ensuring rapid improvement.
As my hon. Friend said, there has been a catastrophic catalogue of continuing financial calamity in Royal Mail in recent years, many instances of which, it may be

103WH
churlish of me to point out, have happened since 1997, and the Minister will expect me to concentrate on that, but it cannot be a coincidence that to many of its commercial and residential customers Royal Mail appears recently to have rapidly lost its way. I hope that the Minister will set out a timetable for its improvement in the years ahead.
I represent a central London seat and residential customers are of particular importance to me. Every day, about a million people come to work in my constituency, in hundreds of thousands of businesses, both large and small, that have suffered as a result of the Royal Mail service. I suspect that there is a particular problem in London. My hon. Friend made it clear that there has been a London bias in most of the national press coverage of the issue, although I appreciate that there are problems in the Isle of Wight and across the Solent in Southampton.
The "Dispatches" programme was shocking; all hon. Members appreciate that investigative journalism ensures that we see only the worst, and I often remark to friends who are asked to go on fly-on-the-wall documentaries that for every 30 or 40 hours of footage that is filmed, only a few minutes actually appears on the television screen. Much of the "Dispatches" programme was fairly shocking, though.
I shall mention some anecdotal evidence shortly, but it was apparent to me from the day that I was elected that there was a big problem with post in central London. In my constituency there are many depots, and there were some ongoing cases from my predecessor, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, from constituents who had expressed great concerns about postal services. Those complaints, which have run on for several years, continue. My hon. Friend mentioned Kay Dixon, who does a sterling job as the director of Postwatch in London; I have regular correspondence with her, not only on day-to-day matters, such as those under discussion now, but on the urban reinvention programme.
My constituency has been relatively unscathed by that programme, although there were a number of closures during the latter part of the 1990s, following commercial reorganisations, particularly in the City of London, and in the more commercial areas of my constituency. However, it is fair to say that, in the course of urban reinvention, some post office closures in the countryside have caused great pains to many Members of Parliament of all parties. However, in my constituency, there has been only one closure, on Vauxhall Bridge road. Inevitably, many constituents felt that having a post office so close to hand was very much part of the day-to-day glue of their lives, and wrote in dismay at the closure of that long-standing post office.
My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out that there has been concern about fraud: the Post Office and Royal Mail have clearly been unable correctly to address that, and there is little doubt that a small minority of employees are abusing their position and stealing credit cards and various other items of value. Although most individuals are insured and most banks take the view that that is part and parcel of the problem that they must
104WH
face, it is clear that it is a multi-million pound problem, which I fear has worsened, rather than improved, in recent years.
I should like to put on the record a few examples, although I appreciate that other hon. Members who wish to speak will f resent their own anecdotal evidence, and, I hope, some projected solutions. There is a large delivery office—probably the nearest large delivery office to the House—a fairly long stone's throw away, in the direction of Victoria in Howick place, about half a mile from here. It is a large depot, and most residents of south Westminster needing to get hold of parcels or recorded deliveries. when they are not at home, will go to Howick place, because it is a major sorting centre. I understand that there are problems there, and I am indebted to a number of local residents, particularly Mr. Martin Shaw, who has been in touch with me on this matter.
Only last week, some 18 postmen from Howick place depot failed to turn up to deliver because of a works do the previous night. We probably all understand that, after Christmas parties in our own offices, attendance is not perhaps what it might be, but apparently that was not a one-off affair. As a result, casuals were called in, many of whom had not delivered in the area before, so they were dismissed immediately; only casuals who had delivered before were used. Many people in the immediate vicinity of Buckingham gate and Artillery row did not have post delivered that day. Many residents in the Ashley gardens area have not had post for several days, and residents are now making special arrangements with the local post office to pick up their mail directly from the sorting office in Howick place. It is obviously a major problem, which underlines the concerns that were set out in the Channel 4 programme to which I referred.
Some of the more major problems involve businesses. All Members of Parliament know that an increasing, and often perhaps a distressing and irritating amount of our mail arrives electronically rather than through the post. It is fair to say that many businesses can run on that basis. I suspect that a significant number of businesses in my constituency that are in the media industry rely very much on virtual and electronic delivery of messages and the like, so they have less of a day-to-day concern about the operation of Royal Mail. However, that is not always the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight referred to an accountancy firm in his constituency. This morning, I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Franks, who is a partner in a small Mayfair-based accountancy firm called Badger Hakim. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote in full one of his concerns. He says that his business and doubtless the business of other companies operating in the area is being jeopardised by the "appalling service" of the Royal Mail. He says that accountancy firms such as his

"are required to deal with numerous regulatory deadlines, not least, the payment of VAC on time, the payment of PAYE on time, the payment of personal and corporate taxes on time, the delivery of documents according to specific time scales set by law or other regulations. In all of there matters, our business in common with every other business in the UK, and every resident in the UK relies completely upon the Roy al Mail to deliver documents. These documents include payments… official forms and other important correspondence."

105WH
As a result, there is a feeling that the failure of Royal Mail is completely unacceptable.
I understand that one client of the firm received an incorrect determination from the Inland Revenue—and we all know the importance of getting things right with the Inland Revenue, or indeed Customs and Excise. The Inland Revenue has entered a county court summons for the collection of approximately £1 million of tax against the taxpayer, whose real liability is no more than £10,000. He has paid the proper amount of tax and, without getting into the intricacies of the case, I understand that forms that were sent from the accountants' office a week ago have still not arrived. The problem, as my hon. Friend said, is not only with arrival but with the delivery of documents from certain parts of central London. The client cannot enter a defence against the county court summons without the forms being submitted to the Inland Revenue.
The Minister will see that that is a grave problem for anyone in the business community. I hope that he will give considerable thought to the concerns that are being set out. I appreciate that many of them relate to day-to-day operations, but he has made a statement in the House on Post Office matters in recent weeks or months. As my hon. Friend said, Adam Crozier, the Royal Mail chief executive, has made a pledge to take much more day-to-day control of the situation. However, I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the longer-term future. Where does he see Royal Mail going in the years ahead?
In the mid-1990s, when my party was in government, there were proposals for privatisation, but the actions of many Back Benchers in the Conservative party ensured that we did not take that route. There is a grave danger because, in essence, the past 10 years have been entirely wasted. There is no sense of a strategy on what the organisation should be doing, other than trying jealously to protect its monopoly. Inevitably, there are commercial pressures in relation to many parcel deliveries and the all-embracing threat to the letters market from electronic mail.
Where does the Minister believe that the Royal Mail will be in 20 or 30 years' time? What sort of market must it appeal to? How will its profitability be affected? Those are strategic decisions. Inevitably, it would be wrong of the Minister to step on the toes of those who have been charged with fulfilling the responsibilities, but I hope that he, too, has at least some vision of where the service should go.
It is a great tragedy that 164 years after the beginning of a universal postal service in this country, many individuals and businesses needing letters and parcels urgently delivered are turning to pre-1840 solutions. They have to organise for delivery privately because they cannot rely on a service of which we should be and have been rightly proud. There is little doubt that our mail service has been a template for those that have developed in other countries, but I fear that many of those nations have a more reliable service than we currently do.
I hope that the Minister will give some thought to my words and those of other hon. Members present, to ensure that we have the rectification required, so that we can be proud of our mail service in the years ahead.
2.31 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. As he well recognised and eloquently put it, it is an important issue.
The situation in Wales is not good. Some five of the seven postcode areas covering more than 75 per cent. of Wales failed to meet their minimum targets for delivery of first class mail according to figures recently issued by the Royal Mail Group. The statistics reveal that the NP postcode covering Newport, LD covering Llandrindod Wells, CF covering Cardiff, SA covering Swansea and SY covering Shrewsbury and mid-Wales all fell below their minimum targets for next-day delivery of first class post in the first three quarters of the 2003–04 financial year.
Needless to say, those figures are disappointing and speak for themselves. The majority of postal users in Wales are getting a sub-standard postal service. At the end of last year, seven areas were meeting some of their targets, but most were not and a great deal more should be done in Wales. Plaid Cymru thinks that postal services should come under the authority of the Welsh Assembly Government. That would not exclude managerial autonomy, but it would introduce some democratic accountability.
The National Assembly has helped to arrest the decline of rural post offices. It recently announced a £1.1 billion fund to support 11 post offices throughout south Wales from Abercwmboi and Abertridwrr to Mountain Ash and Merthyr Tydfil. There is a problem with post offices closing down. An elderly lady who ran a part-time post office in Mallwyd in my constituency gave 10 months' notice that she was giving it up. The local garage proprietor, who had run his business for three years, with a turnover of about £1.7 million a year from the garage, café and shop, applied for the post office franchise. Despite three requests, he was ignored and ultimately given a flat rejection by the people in power. I intervened and asked why. Breaching confidence, as one would expect an amateur outfit to do, the Post Office said that it was not sure whether he was responsible enough. I said, "Responsible? With all that money flowing through his business? He is very responsible. I know him personally." I had a row with Ms Carol Davies of the Post Office. She went on sick leave and he was subsequently given the right to run the post office.
If anyone tells me that there is no underlying scheme to close down rural post offices, they are daydreaming, because there definitely is. I have seen it so many times, and good luck to the National Assembly for recognising the problem. Despite the matter not being devolved, the Assembly recognises the importance of having a good rural post office system.
Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation is even worse than that? The current system of Government funding for rural post offices throughout the United Kingdom ends in 2006. Whereas at the end of last year it was expected that money would be announced to see post offices beyond 2006, rural postmasters and postmistresses, and, more importantly,

107WH
perhaps, their customers, are still waiting to hear from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was going to mention that, but shall not now. The £301 million of funding, or whatever the amount was, finishes at the end of April 2006. I am sure that the Minister will give some assurances on that funding because the hardworking men and women who run the sub-post offices deserve it. How else can they plan for the future? I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention.
Here are some facts about the Royal Mail Group. A £55 million profit was made in the six months to September 2003. The chairman of the board, Allan Leighton, is now proposing to donate £1 million to London's bid to host the Olympic games in 2012. Some may say that it is an abuse of his position to spend customer's money in that manner, particularly when Royal Mail is cutting staff to save costs. Surely £1 million would be better spent on enhancing its services.
The profits confirm the union's view that Royal Mail has talked up the plight of the industry and exaggerated its losses to justify a cost-cutting strategy and make the need for restructuring appear more urgent than it is. The postal industry continues to expand. Mail volumes continue to grow and, in many areas, work force productivity has increased.
Last year, Wales lost the travelling post offices network. Management did not even place a tender for mail dispatches to and from Cardiff airport. So the mail for south and west Wales is now transported by road from Bristol airport by Bristol staff. All mail from mid-Wales and north Wales is conveyed by road to towns in England for processing. I am not making a political point, but a common-sense one. Surely mail processing should be done nearer home. The Royal Mail plans to reduce the number of mail centres in the UK. That will inevitably mean greater concentration away from mid-Wales towards Wolverhampton and Birmingham, making later deliveries and the concentration of mail from mid-Wales further east probable.
The official consumer watchdog, Postwatch Wales, published a report earlier this year that claimed that most of the 14.5 million domestic letters that are lost each year are delivered to the wrong addresses. That figure of 14.5 million is Royal Mail's estimate and some say that it may well be conservative. A recent MORI survey of 2,000 people carried out for Postwatch found that householders are becoming so used to the problem of late and wrongly delivered mail that they do not complain. However, the point has been made, and I think that I should reiterate it, that, if we are moving towards postal votes, that situation clearly has to be put right. Otherwise, we are, among other things, undermining democracy.
During the last Assembly elections, I know for a fact that 11,000 leaflets with the election addresses of Plaid Cymru candidates on them were not delivered in Conwy, but were found in a sorting office in Chester after the election. An apology was forthcoming, but that was not very useful to candidates who lost by a couple
108WH
of hundred votes. That happened in another two constituencies in Wales, so there is cause for concern. I am not a union basher, but I wonder whether it can be persuaded to be a bit more careful with election addresses, particularly those of our party.
Of course, I appreciate that mail delivery is a difficult job, especially in rural areas, and that the universal delivery that we have all been led to believe will happen for ever may well be under threat. In June 2002, the Secretary of State was pleased to announce a liberalisation, which she supported, of the bulk mail market. She cited the experience of Germany, but I am not altogether sure whether that is a cause for universal acclaim because, at the end of the day, Deutsche Telekom, Deutsche Post, TPG Post and others may well be eyeing up the market with a view to cherry-picking some of it. Inevitably, in a cherry-picking situation, other services will have to go by the board. I am not a Europhobe, but I am concerned about other companies coming into the market and cherry-picking, which might leave the universal service obligation in tatters.
I represent a rural seat and am very concerned about so-called liberalisation. I hope that the Minister can slow down the process because it seems to be going hell for leather. I understand the benefits that greater commercial freedom can bring, but the Communication Workers Union and I are saying, "For heaven's sake, let's slow the process down to see how it is working; otherwise we might be heading for a disaster." I repeat what was said earlier on whether the Government have a vision for the Royal Mail: I am afraid that we are heading as quickly as we can towards commercial freedom and competition that may be unfair.
I reiterate the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the subsidy. One of the most notable components of the postal service is the universal service obligation. Are its days numbered? Rural Wales is already quite badly affected. For example, I used to be able to guarantee that the post would be delivered to my home before 8.30 every morning; now, it never arrives before 9.45 am, when I have long since departed.
More to the point, commercial entities and professional firms such as accountants and solicitors in Dolgellau, Bala and various other places in my constituency now have to wait until at least 10 or 10.30 am to receive a delivery. Often the practice among lawyers who did court work, as I did, was to deal with the post first and then leave the office at about 9 or 9.20. That is no longer possible, so making life far more difficult. It is hard for those lawyers to deal with urgent inquiries, which, believe it or not, still come by post rather than by electronic means. That means that such firms, even in rural areas, will turn in droves towards document exchange, which will further undermine the service and imperil the universal service obligation.
The vast majority of firms in Wales are in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. It has been estimated that 90 per cent. of all employees in Wales work in the SME sector. That is a huge chunk. Many of those people live in smaller towns and rural areas. They will suffer—indeed, they are already suffering. Some people in my constituency do not even get a delivery by 11.30 or 11.45 am, and it is likely that that will get worse. I certainly cannot see that it will get any better in the light of the cherry-picking.

109WH
The definition of "urban" in the urban reinvention programme needs to be clarified. For example, Upper Cwmtwrch in the south Wales valleys is apparently urban, but Lower Cwmtwrch is not. On a serious note, the definition refers to

"a settlement of 10,000 population".

What is a settlement? The population along the Meirionnydd coast is about 10,000. Is that a settlement? The scheme has almost been completed in Wales, but we have had to contend with that complication.
I recently spoke to Mr. Eifion Pritchard, the chair of Postwatch Wales, who reminded me of other concerns. What is to happen to the rural network after April 2006? I am talking about the £300 million to which I referred. I want an assurance on that. There is also the issue of definitive Welsh and Scottish stamps. Many thousands of people in Wales signed petitions last year calling for such stamps. They are being produced, but the problem is that they can only be purchased in loose form, not in booklet form. The Royal Mail says that there is not enough demand for them. It does not shock me to know that there is no demand for them if people cannot buy them in booklet form. I ask the Government to bring some pressure to bear on that situation in Scotland and Wales if they can. It seems a very simple thing to do.
I hope that the Minister will deal with my points in detail and, if he cannot, I ask respectfully if he will write to me about them.
Mr. Adrian Flook rose—
Lembit Öpik rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will manage to fit both hon. Members in, but only if they are quick.
2.46 pm
Lembit Öpik: In a spirit of cross-party friendship, and in case I forget to tell the hon. Gentleman when I intend to visit his constituency, I will endeavour to be quick.
I would like to say how extraordinarily impressed I am with the overall performance of the Post Office through the years. It really is some achievement to create a system so effective that, on the whole, it can deliver a letter pretty reliably from one end of the country to its destination at the other at relatively low expense. I am also impressed by the individual commitment of those who work for the Post Office.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) rightly said, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that we can all bring to bear in this discussion. A couple of examples of particularly impressive service come to mind in my area. For example Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who run a care home called Bryn y Graig, were receiving post at their house despite the atrocious condition of the road leading to it. Ultimately, the post office van actually broke its sump in an effort to get to the house. Another example is the feeling one gets from visiting postal workers at Christmas time. While everyone else is settling into the festive spirit, they are working at 5 or 5.30 in the morning, often in very cold conditions, to ensure that the Christmas post arrives on time.
On the whole, the criticisms that we may have of the Post Office cannot be levelled at the overwhelming majority of staff who work there. Nevertheless there are
110WH
issues. We have already well rehearsed the problems of non-delivery. Once again, let us remember that while the percentage of letters lost or not delivered on time is relatively small, it is very important to those who are receiving late post or not receiving it at all. I have had recent business dealings with the NatWest bank in Newcastle upon Tyne and one of its staff, Diane Simpson, probably would not mind my mentioning her frustration at the changes to the postal service. They seem to be delaying the arrival of post and making it more difficult for her to do her job as she used to when she could rely on the post arriving earlier.
A fellow called Oswald Pugh spoke to me as recently as last weekend about the non-arrival of post, which was another incentive for me to come and speak here today. He sent a recorded delivery letter about a speeding ticket he received, and there seems to be no evidence of its having arrived. I should warn that it may not turn out to be the Post Office's fault, but the fact that that is one of the lines of questioning shows a need for the Post Office to reassure people that it will improve its standards of delivery in relation to that small proportion of letters that go amiss.
In defence of the Post Office, I must remind people that we must recognise the economic pressures that have been forced on it. Without going into too much detail—we have discussed the matter before—let me say simply that the Government have been over-zealous in the privatisation of some services, and almost dogmatic in their demands for the creation of a greater competitive environment. Let us remember, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has pointed out, that private companies will cherry-pick the most profitable elements and leave the rest to the existing postal service. That simply drives down the profits on the mandatory services that it must provide. It is a great shame that that is taking place.
Incidentally, I too had an experience with leaflets going astray at election time. Leaflets selling the benefits of voting for me were delivered in error in a neighbouring constituency. That was distressing for me, but it would be difficult to measure how distressing it was for those members of the public who received my leaflets in error, and realised after the election that they were not to be represented by me after all. I never put a claim in for that, but something might come in the future, in our litigious society.
What can be done about all that? I am interested in hearing from the Minister how he and the Government intend to ensure that the Post Office is not put under unreasonable competitive pressure. In other words, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that cherry-picking does not make it impossible for the Post Office to maintain a universal service at a reasonable price. It would not be acceptable for the Minister to say that that is a matter for the free market, as the Post Office is an essential service, never more so than in rural areas such as Montgomeryshire.
The other thing that I hope to get from this debate probably cannot be provided by the Minister but by the powers that be who read these debates. I hope that they will give some indication as to how they intend to ensure that standards are improved. I stress again that the standards are extremely high. There is a very low level —

111WH
a tiny, minuscule level—of criminality in the Post Office. Nevertheless, the service could be improved by making it easier for the public to make a complaint and by treating complaints with great seriousness. When a letter of mine—once again, to NatWest—was delayed recently, I felt that I was brushed off by the Post Office. I was told that there were all kinds of restrictions before I could make a complaint—cold comfort when one has paid in advance for a service that has not been provided.
We all benefit from having an advanced postal service. Perhaps Britain has to pay the cost of having had, as far as I know, the first postal service in the world. Modernising is more difficult for those who go first. Nevertheless, the Minister has an opportunity to give us some specifics as to how he will give the Post Office the latitude to maintain a universal service. After this debate, I shall be watching my postbag for what the Post Office itself can proactively offer in the interests of the collective postal good.
2.53 pm
Mr. Adrian Flook: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on his diligence in securing this debate. His diligence is matched only by that of the excellent and hard-working local postmen and women in the Taunton constituency. My home is only 100 or 200 yards from the sorting office on Chip lane, as it is known. I often see the postmen and women as they cycle back, wearing the helmets that they have been obliged to wear as of last June. I am on at least waving terms with the vast majority of them, and I know that they go out in all weather.
It is important that I acknowledge in this Chamber that in my area, the problem is not local. It appears that the problem is the lateness of postal deliveries to Taunton; I know that from my constituency office. I was there on Monday morning when the chap who normally delivers the mail that comes down from my Westminster office arrived—all mail addressed to Adrian Flook MP is directed straight through to Taunton via the House of Commons. That mail is now consistently not arriving in Taunton until after 12 o'clock. The postman is as exasperated as are my two diligent members of staff. They cannot begin their working day properly until they see all the post.
The Post Office is not helping itself in Taunton. It is at this difficult time, the very month when working practices have changed so much that the local sorting office is in huge turmoil, that the Post Office, which is part of Royal Mail and which we as taxpayers all own, has announced that it will sell the Crown post office to Spar, which will then operate eight counters for the same number of hours, if not more—we were told that it would be open on Saturday afternoon. We acknowledge that the Post Office is trying to improve the quality of service, but somehow I doubt that that will happen.
Some lady in Watford or further afield has decided that the main post office on Fore street in Taunton should be given to the private sector. There is no problem with that in itself, except that she has not realised that, day in and day out, queues snake around the large concourse in front of the eight counters. If Spar
112WH
plans to sell various kinds of chocolates, crisps, sandwiches and soft drinks in the shop, where will the people go? Will they snake around the aisles? Or, as happened recently, will they fall out on to the street, which is the busiest in the centre of Taunton? Where will the people queue to get their first and second-class stamps, car licences, postal orders and pensions?
What is particularly reprehensible is that the decision has been taken before we have received our network reinvention in Taunton. The Post Office is saying that everything is fine, that it has sorted out the local post offices and that anything else going on in or around Taunton does not matter. Network reinvention was supposed to be introduced in March this year, but has now been put back to June and possibly later. The Minister kindly wrote to me to inform me that June was the date, but I hear now that there has been some slippage. We know that Post Office Ltd. is selling our Crown post office from under us and giving it to Spar to operate. The Minister may not be able to respond today, but I hope that he can answer the written question that I have tabled on it. The main point is that the population of Taunton is being asked to be understanding about the changes, but the Post Office is making life difficult for everyone who uses the main post office.
I have received many letters on the subject, notably one from Trevor Spurway, a highly regarded architect who spends £5,000 a year on sending letters. We do not get a second post, so Mr. Spurway expects to receive his letters punctually early in the morning so that his staff can reply to the letters, pay the bills that he receives and, more importantly, cash the cheques for the money that he is owed. He has been told that if he wants a service by 8.30, he can go and collect his mail. Well, that is great, because if he and all the other small businessmen in Taunton, of which there are hundreds, all turn up at the sorting office in Chip lane, with all the bicycling postmen coming back after delivering their rounds, there will be one heck of a crash as all the cars drive into Chip lane.
The service counter is about 6 ft wide, so that system will not work, yet local businessmen are dependent on the cheques that they receive in the mail. It beggars belief that we are following a system suggested by a lady from Watford or somewhere else. We were told that it would be fine to get rid of the main post office because the new accommodation would have physical attributes worthy of what we had before. The same has happened with our sorting office, which has been undermined as well.
I am sorry for the hard-working Post Office employees, particularly those in the main post office who will be laid off if they do not want to be employed by Spar at a lower wage. All that they can do is to go to Bridgwater or Tiverton. I am sure that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) will say that the same thing is happening to his post office, which is appalling. In the view of everyone in this country, particularly those in Taunton and the rest of Somerset, the Post Office is rapidly going downhill.
2.59 pm
Brian Cotter: The debate has been wide-ranging, both geographically and otherwise. We have had contributions from rural Wales, and from towns and cities including London. We should congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. All the different parts of the country are represented.

113WH
Anyone who saw the recent "Dispatches" report on television will recognise the importance of such a debate in addressing the challenges facing Royal Mail. In working to improve the quality of service offered, we need in particular to restore public faith in the company and ensure its long-term viability. I was intrigued by the suggestion that after sending a letter, we would have to phone the people at the other end to make sure that they had got it. I am sure that BT would be pleased about that, but I am not sure that I am.
Hon. Members have raised the problems for business; with my particular interests in Parliament, I am concerned about such issues. There have been late cheques and lost orders. There can also be all manner of trouble in connection with personal matters. If people do not get letters, birthday cards or anniversary cards, they may phone and and say, "Forgotten me again, have you?" One has to say that one has sent the card, which then dribbles in. By that time, words have been exchanged.
The Channel 4 programme exposed an awful lot of concerns about fraud and theft, particularly in London. Viewers will have been shocked by the images and by claims that organised criminal gangs have been involved. The programme exposed incompetence and untrained, ill-managed deliverers. The long established postal workers are extremely competent, but training levels nowadays are perhaps not always what they should be.
It is evident that the Royal Mail must change in practice and drastically improve its service. For thousands of hard-working, honest postal workers, particularly since the exposure of that programme, I am sure that the present situation is a grave disappointment. The reputation of the Royal Mail has been tarnished. Speaking personally, my post in my village in the constituency of Weston-super-Mare is delivered well. Perhaps I am the exception to the rule. I am left thinking, "This chap turns up, he is good and very nice"—but is the chap at the other end equally good? I am sending stuff in the other direction, so that is a concern. One may be lucky, as I am, in having a good service, but what happens elsewhere is also important.
In the long run, we need an open investigation with a much wider remit to consider the day-to-day workings of the Royal Mail, to ensure that they are examined and to improve the quality of service, which we all rightly demand. We also need a coherent and long-term Government strategy on how we can secure Royal Mail's future in the face of an increasingly liberalised market, and we should bear in mind that the company will be open to full competition from April 2007. To achieve that, it is imperative that the Government work together with Royal Mail's management and workers to address some of the challenges that the company faces.
First, we must recognise that there is no quick fix for addressing the problems of a public company that was starved of investment for years. For many years, there seemed to be paralysis and a freeze on doing anything about that, so we are faced with this situation today. There were years of underinvestment in staff training and technology. Adam Crozier, the Royal Mail chief executive, outlined the seriousness of the situation last week when he told a BBC breakfast programme that, in
114WH
terms of investment, Royal Mail is years behind its main rivals, Dutch and German competitors TPG and Deutsche Post.
Royal Mail has also suffered greatly as a result of unofficial strike action, and that needs to be addressed. Wildcat strikes are not acceptable in this day and age. To be fair, we must acknowledge the fact that it is such strikes that have prevented the company from meeting some of its delivery targets. That has contributed to the imposition of fines and to the general perception of the Royal Mail.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, there is a tremendous impact on small firms. I know from my personal experience of dealing with firms how much they depend on the post arriving. I own up to the fact that over many years, a long time ago when I was running my own business, there were occasions when I would be waiting for a cheque to arrive before rushing to the bank to get it through the door in time to keep my balance—
Mr. Turner: Solvent?
Brian Cotter: Solid, or in trim. I attest to that. There must be a case for the Minister to deal with unofficial action. I hope that the new management are trying to examine relations between the work force and Royal Mail.
The problems that Royal Mail has been experiencing in recent months, which colleagues have very adequately addressed, including the losses from the unofficial action that I referred to, huge fines, and outdated equipment are all weakening the company's ability to provide the full liberalisation of the postal service next year. Although it is welcome that Royal Mail is in profit again for the first time in two years, we must ask ourselves for how long that is sustainable, given the current problems faced by the company in the light of the introduction of full competition.
As a result of the liberalisation programme, many EU member states are already considering the position of their national provider in the face of increasing competition and the likely rationalisation in the European market. The Government will have to consider where future investment in Royal Mail will come from. In the face of increasing competition it is likely that it will, perhaps, need to enter into the financial markets to retain that finance. If it does not receive investment in future, that will also weaken the position of the organisation's employees, who are rightly concerned about their future.
I shall conclude now, because we should give the Minister time to respond to this well chosen debate, as there are serious issues to consider. The days of Postman Pat seem long behind us, although I pay tribute, as we all do, to individual postal workers. The concept of putting something in the postbox and then thinking, "That's that—done and dusted", confident that it would come out at the other end, seems to have gone out of the window.
We used to rely on the little tabs on letterboxes saying when the next collection was due. I wonder how efficient the Minister considers those to be. I wonder, too, whether we can rely on special delivery, for which I believe that people can pay extra. I hope that the

115WH
Minister will have some figures on that—if not today, later. Perhaps those of us who are prepared to dip into our pockets occasionally for a special delivery will get that service. There must be facts and figures for the percentage of special delivery items that are delivered on time, or delivered at all.
Now I shall leave it to the Minister to address those issues—the future of Royal Mail, which is so important to us, the improvements that are needed, and its viability for the future. We look forward to his answers.
3.8 pm
Michael Fabricant: The Royal Mail Group is in a mess. So said my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who must be congratulated on securing this debate. Sadly, every single speaker has had to confirm that.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and many other hon. Members said that many postal workers do a very good job. They work hard and are responsible, but they are being let down by a small minority.
A number of colleagues have mentioned the "Dispatches" programme, the subject of which is a disgrace. I remember that many years ago I used to supply broadcasting equipment to Gosteleradio in Moscow. We could not send anything by post to the Soviet Union. Occasionally I would send the latest Beatles album in the post, but I would find that it had been nicked by postal workers. That is not the sort of thing that we ever expected to see happening here in the United Kingdom, yet if the "Dispatches" programme is to be believed, it is not Beatles albums that are being nicked, but far more valuable things. There is no excuse for that.
A number of colleagues have also spoken about the network reinvention programme. I think that all hon. Members accept that all the 9,000 urban post offices cannot be sustained. However, considerable alarm has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about the manner in which the network reinvention programme is being implemented. Mark Fox, the prospective Conservative party parliamentary candidate for Great Yarmouth has expressed grave concern about four closures that are happening in that town, where the Post Office says that post offices that are closer than one mile from each other are ripe for closure. Yet, it does not take into account the elderly population in Great Yarmouth and other areas, and the natural obstacles that often exist between different post offices.
Hon. Members have also spoken about the 14.5 million items of mail that have gone missing from the Post Office during the past year. Six and a half million of those were lost and 8 million were misdelivered. I am delighted that Adam Crozier, who did a first-class job as chief executive of the Football Association, has decided, as chief executive of the Royal Mail Group, that he will take personal control over that issue. While I do not expect the Minister to take personal control, I expect the Government to accept some responsibility. We must never forget that the Royal Mail Group is one of the
116WH
remaining nationalised industries in the United Kingdom where the Government hold 100 per cent. of the shares, appoint the chairman and have a major influence on the names of the directors who are appointed to the main board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned his concern regarding all-postal ballots, which the Government are so keen to promote. We heard from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about election addresses going missing and from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about their being sent to the wrong constituencies. That was bad enough, but what if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, ballot papers do not arrive with electors? What if the ballot papers that do arrive do not appear with the returning officer in time and such votes cannot be counted? It is most important that the Minister, as a Minister of the Crown, makes representations and gives a clear undertaking today that the very process of democracy in the United Kingdom will not be damaged by the unreliability of the current postal service.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy also raised the question of the Government's vision for the Royal Mail Group. Last Thursday, when I asked the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what vision she had regarding its future governance, it appeared that she had none. One merely has to read Hansard to see that there is no vision, or if she has one, it dare not speak its name, because she was not prepared in the past, or on that occasion, to state what it is. Yet, it is true to say that the Royal Mail Group cannot continue as it is at present.
A number of hon. Members, including myself, mentioned rural post offices. There are 9,000 such post offices in the United Kingdom at present. Postwatch estimates that if the £150 million a year grant from the Treasury to the Royal Mail Group ceases at the end of April 2006, 7,000 of them will close. We have read in the press that there is every chance, because of Labour Back Benchers' fears that they might lose their seats at the next election, that the Government will provide that funding. However, it was promised at the end of last year, and I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to say precisely where it will come from.
The main point of this debate was the question of late deliveries. If I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will quote from a letter that I received from a leading financial adviser in the west midlands. He did not want the name of his company mentioned, for fear that some letters would go missing. He said:

"Since 1987 our Post has invariably arrived between 8.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. Therefore, staff have been recruited and work rosters set, so that the Mail might be attended to immediately.

However, in March, with no consultation and after only two weeks notice, our Postal deliveries started to arrive around 12.30 p.m. This was an impossible scenario because our staff were left under-employed during the morning shift.

We, therefore now have to send two staff to collect our Post each day, which is not actually ready until 8.45 a.m., when Postal Delivery staff leave the Sorting Office. Is this progress?"

He continues:

"How can this country compete with its European and American neighbours with this ante diluvian development?

117WH
Adam Crozier said that it is Royal Mail's aim to deliver the first post—the only post—in the morning. He accepts that changing rosters have caused a problem. Problems have also arisen because those new rosters mean that post workers do not know their beat. The Communication Workers Union has also stated that there has been insufficient training for postal workers.
I received a copy of an illuminating letter, which begins:

"Dear James,

As you know the Royal Mail has decided to get rid of the second delivery. As a result, all rounds have been increased from an hour and a half to three hours, sometimes with bizarre results.

In Edith Grove, we used to have the best postman in the business. His name was Mike Collier, known to his colleagues as 'Loon', for reasons I never understand; there was nothing Loony about him! I have never known a postman like him. He knew everybody in all the streets he served, he knew everyone's little foibles … he was always good-humoured, he was fast, and as a postman he was faultless. I always knew he was on holiday because I did not receive my own post, and yet received lots of post for other people.

A week or two before Easter he went on holiday, and temporary postmen came. But when he came back, they had put him on another round … last week we had a new man who we were told would be our 'regular'. Still I got post which was not mine, still my own post didn't arrive, or if it did, it arrived damaged or opened; on Thursday, nobody in the street received post, as far as I can make out. A week or so ago, a parcel was put on to the dustbin housing of the house next door. I assumed it was theirs. Some days later, a neighbour asked what it was, so I went to investigate—and found that it was post that should have been delivered to my house. It was clearly addressed, but the postman had simply not bothered. When my new credit card did not arrive on Friday, the last day of my old one, I went to speak to the manager.

While I was there, someone else came in, from 11 Edith Grove; he runs a business, and was up in arms about the situation. The manager told us that the problem was the unions, that routes had to be worked out on computer and then agreed with the unions, and he could do nothing about it."

The writer goes on and on. It is not boring, but sadly I cannot read it all because I will not allow enough time for the Minister to answer all those important points.
I hope that the Minister will answer those points, because Ministers—not necessarily this Minister, but his colleagues—reply to more and more parliamentary questions about the Post Office with, "This is not a matter for me. It is a matter for Postcomm and the Royal Mail." That simply is not good enough. The Government must accept some responsibility for the Royal Mail; they cannot shirk that. They are the 100 per cent. shareholder in the Royal Mail Group and they have to approve the appointment of the chairman.
I hope that the Minister will accept some responsibility on behalf of the Government, and that he will accept that businesses and private customers are suffering from late deliveries or deliveries that simply never happen. I hope that he will agree that the disruption to the mail just cannot continue. Our democracy itself could be endangered by electors not receiving ballot papers and returning officers not receiving returned ballot papers in time. I hope that he will set out how Royal Mail, in partnership with its owners, the Government, will restore itself to become the beacon of excellence that it once was.
3.19 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. It is an important and timely debate, and I welcome the opportunity to air some very serious matters.
The performance of Royal Mail has been sharply criticised recently, and rightly so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, on behalf of the Government, apologised for the problems. All the specific problems that have been mentioned need to be addressed and Royal Mail management will see all the specific and local points that have been made. There are, without question, problems.
However, I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for reminding the House about the fact that, for the most part, the organisation continues to do a good job while at the same time rolling out one of the biggest restructurings ever undertaken by a British business. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) made that point about his local service, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) spoke in another debate about the excellent and recently improved service that she has received.
There are certainly serious problems in many constituencies. Royal Mail has held up its hand and acknowledged those, and it is working hard to resolve them and get the service back to the level that its customers demand. I well understand, as does Royal Mail, how important that is for both domestic and business customers.
At the beginning of 2002, Royal Mail was losing more than £1 million every working day. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) suggested rather half-heartedly that that was connected with the change of Government in 1997. To his credit, he was apologetic about making that point. He was right to apologise about it, because that was certainly not what the problem was. He was on stronger ground in pointing to the competition with e-mail and the wider growth of competition in the postal services market. It was clear that losses could not be allowed to continue.
We took action to put things right. We appointed Allan Leighton as chairman, to provide leadership and to turn the company around. We have further strengthened the board since then and we agreed a three-year renewal plan that put in place a financial package of more than £1 billion to support its implementation. We are just into the final year of the plan. At the latest half-year, Royal Mail posted a very small operating profit of £3 million before tax. That is encouraging, but it is clear that the turnaround to sustainable profitability is not yet complete. The final year, which we are now into, is crucial as major changes are made to how the business operates.
There have been problems, as contributions to the debate and recent media coverage have shown. Royal Mail has not met its quality of service targets. It still delivers more than 90 per cent. of first class letters the next day, but it accepts that that proportion is not good enough. It needs to be at the higher levels that we saw in the past.

119WH
As we heard, a key element is the move to a single delivery. It is, to the company's customers, by far the most visible change, and its introduction has certainly been accompanied by some problems. The UK is one of the last places to have more than one delivery a day, and that must change if Royal Mail is to be competitive. Royal Mail delivers more than 82 million items to up to 27 million addresses. The amount of mail for daily delivery today is about the same as the highest Christmas peak was 30 years ago. The number of addresses to which delivery is made has also increased significantly. As a result, the pressure on early-morning deliveries has increased hugely.
By contrast, improvements in mail sorting technology and distribution networks mean that second delivery was, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, required for only 4 per cent. of mail, but the cost of providing that service was about 20 per cent. of total delivery costs. Clearly that could not continue.
The change to single delivery means a later start on some routes, in order to sort mail for delivery and put it into route order. As hon. Members have said, the aim is to deliver to the majority of customers by lunchtime. The change is a huge undertaking, but the single delivery has been introduced in three quarters of all delivery offices—1,100 out of 1,450. The process takes six to eight weeks to bed in as staff get used to new and longer delivery routes.
I point out that changes are being made following full consultation between management and employees at the local level. I think that that is a good thing. The debate has clearly shown that many people are anxious about the changes. In the last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received Allan Leighton's personal assurance that the company is vigorously tackling the problems that customers in some areas are experiencing while the single delivery is being introduced, and solutions are being found. I will be watching for performance levels to come back up to what was achieved last year, when 93 per cent. of first class letters were delivered the next day.
The problem of lost mail was raised. As I said, Royal Mail handles about 82 million packages a day; estimates vary on how many letters are lost, and the different estimates can be used to support either side of the argument. Royal Mail commissioned consultants, who produced independent figures that estimated the amount of letters lost or substantially delayed at 0.07 per cent. In the first two years of that data gathering, the estimated number of losses fell by nearly a half, but that still means that about 2 million items go missing or are delayed every year. The company's top priority is to improve the quality of services to its customers, and I hope that that figure will fall a good deal further.
The Postal Services Act 2000 introduced a strong regulator to monitor performance: Postcomm has real powers to impose penalties, and last year it showed that
120WH
it was not frightened to use them when it imposed a fine of £7.5 million, the biggest fine ever issued by a regulator. Postwatch, alongside Postcomm, will continue to monitor the situation closely, and I join the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in commending the work of Kay Dixon of Postwatch in London and Peter Carr, the chairman of Postwatch, and their colleagues.
I was appalled at the unacceptable behaviour on display in the shocking "Dispatches" programme. Royal Mail management will thoroughly investigate the allegations, especially the criminal activity, which was indeed disgraceful. Where appropriate, action will be taken against individuals, including dismissal if necessary. The company have already taken action on a number of those points.
As several hon. Members have rightly said, the vast majority of postal staff do a superb job; they are honest and hardworking, and take a pride in their job. Those responsible for the conduct that we have heard about are a tiny minority. Postal workers are part of the fabric of a community, especially in rural areas where they give people support and assistance, as well as delivering the post.
Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I do not think so, because the hon. Gentleman has raised the important issue of the postal elections, which I need to comment on. I understand hon. Members' concerns about the impact of the quality of service problems being experienced by Royal Mail on forthcoming postal ballots. Royal Mail is well aware how important it is to ensure that it provides a reliable service during the pilot postal elections in June, which will affect up to 14 million people. Royal Mail will give the handling of the ballot papers its highest priority; electoral mail will be readily identifiable and it will be given priority over other mail.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is overseeing the elections, has had meetings with Royal Mail to discuss the development of detailed national and local plans for the pilots, and it is confident that robust plans are in place for the delivery and return of all electoral mail. The Department's project team will monitor Royal Mail's performance during the election period; it is in regular contact with Royal Mail to ensure that everything runs smoothly.
Finally, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned collection times on post boxes, a matter that is regularly raised with me. He will be pleased to know that in February Royal Mail announced that it had accepted proposals from Postwatch to reintroduce tabs on post boxes that show the last collection time. That announcement will be widely welcomed.
We have had a valuable debate, and work is being done to address with great urgency the problems that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for drawing them to our attention.

MRSA
3.30 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) hopes to catch your eye during it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is certainly acceptable to me.
I thank my constituent, Rosemary Edwards, for allowing me to raise this matter today; I know that it is a painful subject for her and her brother. She has two major concerns: first, she wants to know how the incidence of MRSA can be reduced in hospitals; secondly, she is concerned about how St. Helier hospital dealt with her and her brother's complaint about the way their father was treated. Her father, Mr. Thomas Alun Charles Edwards, first became an in-patient at St. Helier hospital on 7 March 2002. With her agreement, I will focus only on the first point, which is the more general issue about MRSA and how it can be tackled.
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is part of a wide range of infections that can be found in hospitals. Those include methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, which the actress Leslie Ash recently contracted. As the Minister will know, there has been a sharp increase in the number of cases of MRSA. According to a report published in The Times at the weekend, the number has risen from 114 cases in 1992 to 5,561 cases in 2003. There has also been an increase—albeit not so significant—in the number of cases of MSSA, which have risen from 4,373 to 7,886 in 2003.
Sue Doughty: The Minister will be aware of graphic headlines in the Evening Standard last week, referring to hospitals in the grip of killer superbugs. It is important that we understand that we are talking about MRSA and not—as we suspect that the Evening Standard did in its analysis—methicillinresistant Staphylococcus, not aureus. We need to understand what the risk really is and deal with it accurately. It is important for my constituents that we get clear information.
Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is important for her constituents that the information is accurate.
The UK has a relatively high level of hospital-acquired infection. The cost, in health terms, is very high. One in 10 patients has some kind of health-care acquired infection. In financial terms, the cost is estimated at about £1 billion a year, according to the National Audit Office. Infection control programmes are cheap in comparison; it is the equivalent of maintaining one hospital bed a year per 250-bed hospital. In other words, the cost of one patient suffering MRSA and being kept in hospital for a year is the same as that of ensuring that the full 250-bed hospital is kept as clean as possible.
The Government recognise the issue of MRSA. Their document, "Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England", published at the end of last year by the chief medical officer, confirms that the national health service does not perform as well as the health services of other European
122WH
countries. There are evidence-based countermeasures of known effectiveness that are not being implemented consistently or rigorously in the majority of hospitals.
I said that I would concentrate on MRSA, rather than the more specific complaint, but it is worth pointing out that my constituent was made aware of her father's MRSA diagnosis from a piece of paper that was accidentally left by his bed. Clearly that is not an appropriate way to be informed of such a serious complaint. It is also important to note that according to the death certificate her father's death was not caused by MRSA, but by coronary artery disease. However, MRSA was likely to have been a significant contributory factor.
What is MRSA? It is spread mainly through hand contact, but some people carry the bacteria on their body and are not infected by it. It often occupies the skin and nose of humans and only becomes dangerous if it finds deep tissue. It is easily spread because it moves with the skin. It can be washed off with soap, but disinfectants do not rid surfaces of it. As hon. Members will know, MRSA infections are resistant to treatment.
What has St. Helier hospital been doing in response? It holds training sessions for staff. It has an awareness programme about hand washing for staff. Back in October 2002, when we first received a comprehensive response from the chief executive about the different things that the hospital had undertaken, there was talk of providing information leaflets about MRSA. I rang yesterday to check on the progress. I was told that the leaflets are now at the printers. Bearing in mind that this letter was from October 2002, I hope that being at the printers is not the equivalent of the cheque in the post. Clearly a long time has elapsed since the original commitment was made.
If a patient is found to be carrying MRSA, the hospital carries out a risk assessment. The patient is isolated or moved to an infection control ward if it is felt that a spread is likely to occur. Could the Minister tell us about the availability of such isolation areas? She may not be able to do that now in relation to St. Helier hospital, but perhaps she could tell us in general terms. Finding places within hospitals where sufferers can be isolated has been an issue. The hospital treats with mupirocin cream, but is limited to two courses because of MRSA resistance. During my conversation with the trust yesterday I was given assurances that it was making the progress that was needed against the different infection control indicators.
The hospital clearly has a responsibility here, but so do the Government. The Government's actions are set out in the "Winning Ways" report, to which I have referred. It is worth considering some of the progress that has been made in relation to the report. For instance, according to action area one—"Active Surveillance and Investigation"—the chief medical officer will publish on his website a listing of rates of health care associated infection in each area of the country. The availability of information and people's awareness of MRSA levels are of concern to my constituent.
I am perhaps no longer an expert in IT terms, having left the industry seven years ago. However, a cursory search of the chief medical officer's site yesterday did not reveal an area-by-area listing of rates. The Minister's

123WH
officials may say that it is there and that I was looking in the wrong place. I should be interested to know whether that information is available. Another key point in action area one was the requirement to carry out a national audit of deaths from health care-associated infections. Until we have carried out that audit, it is impossible to say how many deaths are associated with such infections.
Action area six on management and organisation described key points to which the different trusts needed to respond. It stated that the chief executives of the trusts will

"designate the prevention and control of healthcare associated infection as a core part of their organisations clinical governance and patient safety programmes",

that

"a Director of Infection Prevention and Control is to be designated within each organisation",

and that the Department of Health will publish further guidance. I accept that "Winning Ways" was published at the end of last year and we are only in May, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me that progress is being made on these matters and that she is starting to receive information from different trusts confirming that these action points are in hand.
My constituent raised other issues about her father's treatment in hospital, such as poor communication with doctors, hostility of staff in certain instances, and the deterioration of his health while in hospital, but I want to focus on MRSA. To avoid MRSA becoming an even bigger problem, we should examine new techniques that might be more effective at addressing it. Can the Minister say whether the Government have looked at the Bioquell system? I understand from Bioquell's briefing that it was first deployed during last year's severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis, when it was used in three hospitals in Singapore. It has also been used in an intensive care unit in a Paris hospital that was infected by another superbug. According to the company's research, the system achieves significant levels of decontamination or removal of the MRSA infection. According to the research results, after cleaning the MRSA level was reduced from 90 per cent. to 66 per cent., and after the use of the Bioquell system the level fell to 1 per cent. If its research is correct, there is a significant improvement in cleaning and decontamination. I hope that the Minister can comment on that.
My constituent also highlighted the issue of the availability of information. She felt that patients and their families and other relatives should be informed of the level of MRSA infection in hospitals. Can the Minister give the Government's view on whether it might be appropriate to make more information available not just at an area level, which is being proposed, but in the hospital environment, and to do so more publicly? I understand that risks may well be associated with that in terms of the level of concern or fear that people might have, but has the Minister weighed the pros and cons of that argument?
According to reports in The Daily Telegraph, there is an issue relating to doctors not wanting to put MRSA on death certificates because of concerns about possible
124WH
litigation. Has the Minister considered that? What advice would the Government give to doctors in that situation? Should there be a separate category for MRSA so that we can get a better handle on what levels of infection there are?
It is clear that MRSA is far too prevalent in English hospitals. "Winning Ways" is a good start in our fight against it. However, it is not too soon to start to review whether the action points that it identifies have been put in train, although I acknowledge that it is too soon to assume that everything has been dealt with—that is not possible within the time frame.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this Adjournment debate on a very important subject. I express my sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Edwards. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of patient confidentiality, I cannot comment further on his case. However, he has kindly spoken largely about general issues so I can respond to much of what he said.
We recognise that MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections are a serious problem for the NHS. They are difficult and expensive to treat and affect patients by causing illness, pain, anxiety, longer stays in hospital, and sometimes death. This country is not alone, as these are a major concern for many health services worldwide. The European antimicrobial resistance surveillance system shows that some countries—the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and Denmark—have maintained low levels of MRSA bloodstream infections. Although this country has a relatively high level of infection, other countries—for example, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Ireland—have also been experiencing increasing levels since 1999.
I shall talk about decontamination later, but there is no single solution to preventing hospital-acquired infections, and not all infections can be avoided. We need to remember that medical science is improving the quality of, and is prolonging, life, which means that patients are more vulnerable to infection as they become older, more vulnerable and are still being treated.
The control of infections, such as MRSA, is complex. It is affected by factors such as the number and type of patients treated, patients infected in other countries, trusts or in the community, the design and layout of the building, and appropriate prescribing. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we are committed to tackling those issues In recent years, we have actively provided the NHS with advice and information on MRSA. The mandatory surveillance of MRSA bloodstream infections started in 2001, and for the first time provided data by individual named trusts. We now have two years of that data to show the national position, and to enable trusts to investigate their own performance and act as appropriate to improve patient care. The MRSA data are available by individual named trust on the Department's website. That information is for a wide audience to consult and be aware of.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our major initiative, "Winning Ways", which ensures that we tackle the issues. We already have standards to ensure

125WH
that there is a managed environment, which minimises the risk of infection of patients, staff and visitors. Although progress is being made on, for example, increasing attention to hand hygiene, which is demonstrated by a 35 per cent. increase in the amount of alcohol handrub that has been purchased through NHS logistics, we recognise that further action is needed. That is why the chief medical officer developed "Winning Ways", our action plan to fight health care-associated infection. The report recognises the need for infection control to be everyone's business, and not just the concern of specialists such as infection control teams.
To improve senior manager commitment at a local level, a director of infection, prevention and control will be designated by every organisation providing NHS services. That individual must report directly to the chief executive and the board. The director of infection, prevention and control is not a new post, but an extra responsibility for an existing senior health professional. Designation of the new director is a local decision, but we expect that the individuals concerned will have the appropriate expertise and authority to challenge inappropriate clinical hygiene practice and antibiotic prescribing decisions. The majority of trusts have now designated a director of infection, prevention and control, and the directors will be able to pull together the prevention activities required to control the infections and bring about fast, effective change to improve practice.
Tom Brake: The Minister said that she believes that a majority of trusts have identified their director of infection prevention and control. Does the Department do anything proactively to ensure that all the trusts appoint such a director?
Miss Johnson: We expect the trusts to act on the recommendations. Obviously, we do not audit every piece of advice and information that is sent to them. They would be overwhelmed with bureaucracy and we must keep that to an absolute minimum to ensure that trusts can concentrate on taking the required actions and trying to give patients the best possible care.
To complete the point that I was making, we are assisting the NHS to develop a consistent approach to help identify training needs. Guidance on the competencies required for the position will be published shortly. "Winning Ways" reinforces good clinical practice, but there are a number of new measures included in it—for example an investigation of new systematic approaches to the identification, evaluation and control of infection hazard. A new audit of deaths from health care-associated infection will investigate a proportion of the deaths that occur to identify avoidable factors and lessons to be learned. There is a high-quality research and development programme on health care-associated infection, on which £3 million will be spent over the next three years in addition to the Department's antimicrobial resistance research programme, which accounts for more than £2 million and includes work on MRSA.
There is also a rapid review process to assess the new procedures and products for which claims of effectiveness are made over their ability to prevent or control health care associated infection. A range of
126WH
activities is underway to help the NHS control MRSA. Of particular relevance is the toolkit to improve compliance with hand hygiene. That has been piloted and the results are being evaluated. In addition, professional guidelines on preventing and controlling MRSA in hospitals are being reviewed.
In relation to the issue of prevalence, I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and anyone else following the debate is aware that Staphylococcus aureus is carried by about 30 per cent. of the population, normally with no problems.
3.52 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.7 pm
On resuming—
Miss Johnson: Staphylococcus aureus is carried by 30 per cent. of the population without a problem. Of the patients admitted for elective surgery, between 2 and 5 per cent. are carrying it but are not suffering from it in any way. MRSA is less common. Patients having elective surgery have been surveyed fairly frequently, and rates of 2 to 5 per cent. are cited. Most of those patients have been in a hospital or nursing home in the previous year. However, rates are believed to be lower in the general population with no hospital contacts. Rates will be higher in certain patients, for example, diabetics with foot ulcers.
Some interesting research has been done at St. Thomas's on the use of vaporised hydrogen peroxide, or the Bioquell system as the hon. Gentleman referred to it, which casts some doubt on the conventional view that the environment is not an important source of MRSA in patients. We will consider those results during the development of our research strategy on health care-associated infections, which I mentioned earlier.
Guy's and St. Thomas's is to be commended for taking a positive approach to investigating new techniques to tackle MRSA, which is a problem throughout the NHS. The next stage is to investigate the effects on infection rates of improving the environmental decontamination, sound scientific data which will help the NHS to decide whether to implement those methods more widely. That decontamination method requires empty facilities that can be sealed.
Routine mortality statistics cannot provide information on the number of deaths where MRSA is the underlying or contributory cause of death. That is why in implementing "Winning Ways", we will establish an audit of deaths to identify avoidable factors and the lessons to be learned from them. It is difficult to produce statistics on MRSA, because there currently are no codes for antibiotic resistance in the international classification of diseases. However, codes are being introduced from 2006, and they will help to ensure that better data are available in the future.
Many of the patients who die with MRSA are already seriously ill with another medical condition, and it is difficult to say with any certainty whether they would have recovered from their underlying condition if they had not acquired the infection. At present, the death certificate is designed to obtain the first underlying cause

127WH
of death. It is up to the doctor to decide how many conditions in the sequence, other than the underlying cause, should be recorded. MRSA may contribute to death, but it is unlikely to be the first event in the sequence. Requiring that it be mentioned on postmortem reports under the present system would be unlikely to catch most deaths following MRSA infections. Most deaths in hospital are not subject to post mortem. Indeed, most post mortems normally involve little microbiology.
However, we are on the verge of fundamental changes to the way in which deaths are certified. The proposed changes should enable death certification to be done electronically and information from patient records to be linked electronically to the registration, with the consent of the family member registering the death. That will help identify cases in which MRSA or other hospital-acquired infections played a role.
New guidance has been commissioned to cover design and cost standards for different types of isolation facilities in general acute hospitals. It will include a new approach to ventilated isolation, which will improve flexibility, value for money and safety. We are undertaking modelling work to establish how many isolation rooms the NHS needs, and we will undertake an economic evaluation of the cost of meeting the shortfall. Since 1997, our advice for major hospital redevelopment has been to aim for a minimum of 50 per cent. single bedrooms. Clearly, fewer issues are likely to arise as that provision under our big hospital programme becomes more extensive.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman's point on leaflets was about the St. Helier trust leaflet. I cannot explain why the leaflet is still at the printers if the trust was working on it in 2002. The Health Protection Agency has produced a leaflet that is available to trusts, although several trusts also produce their own. I hope that rapid progress will be made on that.
128WH
Cleanliness in hospitals is an important issue, although we do not have evidence to show that MRSA and similar infections are associated with a lack of cleanliness. We are working to improve infection control and cleanliness. The clean hospitals programme demonstrates a major improvement by the NHS in creating the right environment for patients, staff and visitors. It is not, and we have never claimed that it should be, a technical inspection of hygiene; rather, it assesses the hospital from the patient's perspective. The Government have invested an additional £68 million in a nationwide clean-up campaign and have initiated a programme of unannounced visits by independent teams. Every hospital in England now provides a patient environment that is good or acceptable. Nevertheless, we accept that there is still room for improvement. Revised national standards of cleanliness for the NHS were issued in August last year, and a cleaning manual was issued to the NHS in April this year.
Tom Brake: What about the point about more information in hospitals on MRSA infection rates?
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman himself said that this is a difficult and sensitive issue. I have discussed prevalence in the general population, which would impact on the provision of information.
We believe that "Winning Ways" will result in real change and will significantly benefit patients. The new director of infection prevention and control will be key to that change and will have the appropriate expertise and authority to challenge poor practice. The process will also be helped by other changes in the NHS such as our major programme of creating extra capacity and the increase in public expenditure on the NHS, which is set to rise to £90 billion. We have also implemented major recruitment drives for qualified health care personnel and increased the number of training places for doctors and nurses.

Rail Services (Milton Keynes)
4.15 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My purpose in securing the debate is to highlight the importance of frequent and reliable rail services to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I want to speak on behalf of not only current users of such services to and from Milton Keynes but the extra users that will be generated over the next decade as a result of housing growth. I want to press the Minister to ensure that rail users from Milton Keynes benefit not only from the current west coast main line upgrade but from sustained investment in the railways to ensure that rail infrastructure matches the growth of the city.
It is also not my intention to criticise Virgin Trains, Silverlink or the Strategic Rail Authority. The problems that face my constituents and those of my hon. Friend and others along the west coast main line are a direct result of a deal that was done between Railtrack and Virgin Trains in the desperate privatisation that took place in the dying days of the previous Conservative Government. At that point, Virgin was given the exclusive use of the fast line, which forced all other passenger services and freight on to the slow line. That has severely constrained the options that are now open to the Strategic Rail Authority in allocating track space among the different operators.
The west coast main line modernisation was expected to benefit rail travellers from Milton Keynes. It will improve the reliability of all services, but I would contend that the other benefits of modernisation are not being shared equally between the different parts of the line. Off peak, my constituents will benefit from faster and more reliable Pendolino services northwards and to London. However, commuters from Milton Keynes are seriously concerned by their loss of access to the Virgin services at peak times and the consequent almost total reliance on Silverlink services during those times. They fear that the extra capacity that is being created by Silverlink will not fully compensate for the loss of access to seats on Virgin trains.
The success of Milton Keynes as a new city depends on its situation and on good transport links, and in particular those from north to south. There are three stations in Milton Keynes that are served by the west coast main line: Wolverton, Milton Keynes Central and Bletchley. The business community, and the continued growth of the local economy, depend on fast, frequent links from London, and from Birmingham and the north. The SRA estimates that 3,000 people commute daily to jobs in London, and an increasing number of people are commuting in to Milton Keynes from London, and from Birmingham and Northampton.
At present, travellers to London from Milton Keynes Central can choose between the inter-city Virgin services and the county services that are run by Silverlink. Journey times are shorter on the Virgin services and the Silverlink services are fast, semi-fast or slow, depending on the number of additional stops between Milton Keynes and Euston.
During the modernisation works on the west coast main line my constituents have been experiencing considerable disruption and delay. There has been a
130WH
series of weekend blockades and longer blockades over the Easter break. Further reductions in services have been announced from 24 May until 20 June, not to mention a month-long blockade in the summer. For the most part travellers have accepted that inconvenience as a necessary part of the modernisation. However, they were expecting that, having borne the pain, they would benefit from the improvements once the work was complete. For some time, I have been lobbying the SRA for a fair deal for Milton Keynes commuters. The SRA is in the process of finalising the new timetable for September 2004 onwards, and the published version is causing considerable concern locally.
As I said, the introduction of the Virgin Pendolino services will reduce journey times, but at peak times many fewer will stop at Milton Keynes than the intercity trains that they will replace, so that is of little direct benefit to Milton Keynes commuters. The reduction in Virgin trains stopping at Milton Keynes reduces the options for those travelling to London. It also affects those commuting into Milton Keynes from the north, as some of the trains from Birmingham will not now stop at Milton Keynes. However, I am pleased that the SRA has now responded to lobbying by adding one early-morning service that will go directly from Birmingham to Milton Keynes.
The Pendolinos will displace all the Silverlink services from the fast line to the slow line, and commuters fear that journey times will increase. The SRA says that, from December 2005, the slow line should be improved to allow speeds of up to 100 mph. It claims that Silverlink fast services will be two minutes faster than they are at present, although that will be 10 minutes slower than Pendolinos. To make more room for commuter services, all freight services have been removed from the slow line at peak times, which is welcome.
Of more concern to commuters than journey times are the fears that capacity will be inadequate to cope with commuter numbers. In the morning peak, there will be Virgin services at 6.40 and 7.06, but in the two-hour gap until the next stopping Virgin train, which is a time of very heavy usage, commuters will be reliant on Silverlink alone. Commuter trains are already extremely full, with some passengers forced to stand in both first and second class.
Regular commuters are concerned about the likely situation after September. The SRA argues that capacity will be maintained, as some Silverlink trains will be increased from eight carriages to 12, and all stations between Northampton and Euston except Bletchley—I shall return to that later—will be modified so that they can take 12-carriage units, or rather so that passengers can get on and off all 12-carriage units. According to the SRA. in the morning peak there will be an extra 600 seats on Silverlink trains and an extra 2,700 from London in the evening peak, when even fewer Virgin trains are available.
Despite that extra capacity, commuters remain concerned. There are added worries because of the reduction in train numbers from the other Milton Keynes stations—from Wolverton, where there is one fewer service in the morning though two extra in the evening, and from Bletchley. It is therefore possible that commuters may transfer from those two stations to Milton Keynes Central, adding to the pressure.

131WH
The situation has arisen because of the priority given to the fast Pendolino services, which are monopolising the fast track. However, I argue that the very fast acceleration and deceleration of Pendolinos means that a stop at Milton Keynes would not add significantly to journey times, and observation already shows that Pendolinos speeding through Milton Keynes are rarely full.
The SRA should be able to insist that more Pendolino services stop at Milton Keynes. In particular, both the extra Pendolinos that go through Northampton in the morning should also stop at Milton Keynes, as I was led to expect by letters from the SRA. It now seems to be proposed that only one should. It is unacceptable that travellers from Milton Keynes may be forced on to more crowded and usually slower trains when there is spare capacity on Pendolinos.
Brian White: One fear that Milton Keynes companies have is that their work force, which comes in from the west midlands and London, will be forced on to the roads—the M1 and M6. That will have a detrimental effect, but simply adding the services that my hon. Friend is talking about would alleviate it.
Dr. Starkey: Indeed, and another concern is that although the SRA has done a passenger count from Milton Keynes Central in the morning peak, which is how it arrived at the estimate of 3,000 commuters daily, it has not done counts of people getting off trains in Milton Keynes. Until a number of commuters and I alerted the SRA, it seemed not to be aware of the growing numbers of people who are commuting into Milton Keynes. That is of huge concern to businesses and to my hon. Friend and me.
Is the Minister satisfied with the judgment made by the Strategic Rail Authority on the balance to be struck between the needs of long-distance travellers and commuters from Milton Keynes? The authority seems to be operating only with data based on estimates, and I am not certain how accurate they are. If the additional capacity proves inadequate and the fears of Milton Keynes commuters turn out to be justified in September 2004, will the Minister insist on action immediately, or will my and my hon. Friend's constituents simply be expected to put up with it?
So far, I have dealt with current commuter needs; I now turn to the likely future growth in rail passengers, and the action that needs to be taken to meet that need. The Minister will be aware that Milton Keynes has been designated by the Government for future housing and employment growth. The demand for rail services is bound to increase, so even more capacity will be required.
Knowledge of that future growth makes current commuters concerned about capacity. Even if the capacity is adequate now, they worry about how long it will be before demand exceeds supply again. The Deputy Prime Minister has assured both Milton Keynes Members and the council that all necessary infrastructure will be provided in parallel with housing growth, not after housing growth. If the rail capacity
132WH
from Milton Keynes is not increased, either economic growth will falter or the extra traffic will be transferred to the road, cancelling out the effects of the improvements planned for the M1.
I urge the Minister to work with the SRA and the train operators; he should start now to plan the rail infrastructure required to sustain that planned future growth. I draw his attention to four items. First, an extra platform with a loop on the fast line is needed at Milton Keynes Central; that would allow the interval between trains on the fast line to be reduced from eight minutes to four, permitting more Virgin trains to stop at Milton Keynes at peak times. Secondly, the additional turnback siding at Wolverton would allow more services to Wolverton, to the north of central Milton Keynes, as well as to Milton Keynes Central, and would encourage more people from the north of the city to choose rail rather than road.
Thirdly, improvements to signalling at Bletchley and works to the junction have been postponed by Network Rail until at least 2009. Those works would enable Bletchley to run the 12-car trains, and would allow greater speeds for trains going through Bletchley. It would also pave the way for the opening of the east-west route from Bletchley to Bicester, with the possibility of services from Oxford to Milton Keynes Central. Fourthly, the Hanslope flyover would allow services from Northampton to cross the fast line without delay.
Negotiations with the SRA are taking place for a two-year extension of the Silverlink franchise, and the long-term franchise is still up for consideration. As more commuters will be using the Silverlink services, the quality of trains and rolling stock will become more important. I ask the Minister to guarantee that the SRA will ensure that the new franchise will include quality standards, and that the authority will commit the franchise holder to significant quality improvements on the Milton Keynes to Euston commuter service. That would include the introduction of better-quality rolling stock, equivalent to that being introduced next year across the whole network, complete with air conditioning and InterCity-style tables.
In conclusion, I accept that the needs of different groups of rail passengers need to be balanced and that the SRA feels constrained by past commitments to British Rail and Virgin. However, it is not acceptable for Milton Keynes commuters to receive a worse service just to save passengers from the north a few minutes. It is not acceptable for Milton Keynes to be expected to grow and accommodate a high proportion of extra housing need in the south-east without improvements to the rail transport capacity. I urge Ministers to intervene to ensure that the interests of Milton Keynes commuters are protected, and to guarantee that the future needs of Milton Keynes are met.
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing the debate and on the cogent and detailed manner in which she presented her case. I also take the opportunity to commend her and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on the way in which they, the council and

133WH
much of the community in the area have greeted and embraced the notion of growth area status and of operating within the sustainable communities plan. If every community responded in the same fashion, we would be in a happier situation than we are.
From what my hon. Friend said, she will understand that the entire area, including its infrastructure, is in a state of flux. There is the west coast main line situation, which I will discuss later, and the two-year extension to Silverlink services. As a Minister in the Department for Transport, and as a former Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, lovingly attached to the sustainable communities plan, I would agree with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that infrastructure in the UK should complement growth as it occurs rather than chasing it, as has happened in the past.
My hon. Friend's remarks about the balance between local traffic, local commuters and high-speed interurban rail travel were also well made, and will become increasingly relevant as we begin to rationalise and bed in the entire national rail network. We are trying to strike that balance.
As my hon. Friend said, the vast majority of passengers in the area use Milton Keynes Central, which is served by trains running to Watford Junction and London Euston and to Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, the north-west and Glasgow. Happily for all the commuters from Milton Keynes, although they may not know it, they sail through God's own country—Harrow, East—en route to London. Occasionally, trains stop there—at Harrow and Wealdstone station. I have used the service in both directions, and therefore understand much of what she says.
My hon. Friend made fair points about the west coast main line modernisation. I know that many communities up and down the line have been extraordinarily patient through the blockades in the various bits of work that are taking place. There is, has been, and will continue to be significant progress in that area, but she will know that there are still some hurdles to be overcome by September 2004, in relation both to the new Pendolino trains and to infrastructure delivery. Overall, however, we are encouraged by the progress being made.
Further effort is, however, required and is being made, to ensure that the arrangements for engineering possessions along the route are resolved more effectively and quickly, with customers being kept better informed. I would love to say that every single loving minute and hour spent on the west coast main line has been thought through in its entirety and that there has never been any unnecessary delay or imposition on local communities, but that is not the case. In such a major modernisation project, there are often more difficulties than originally expected, so that a weekend blockade may extend to a series of weekends. I congratulate the people of Milton Keynes on their forbearance.
I am also aware that commuters and other travellers from Milton Keynes Central have expressed concern that Virgin Trains services will not be calling there at peak periods from the commencement of the new timetable in September 2004. That is because Virgin Trains considers that, with that new timetable, there will
134WH
be more long-distance passengers already on the trains who will not choose or seek to stop at Milton Keynes. Virgin Trains services will continue to call off peak at Milton Keynes Central. Northbound services will continue to call there during the morning peak and southbound services during the evening peak, so that commuter journeys to Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham will continue to be possible. That will start to address some of the issues raised by both my hon. Friends about the travel-to-work area in that whole subregion. I am keenly aware that much of what we are trying to do on the M1 and the M6, and in improving elements of the surrounding road infrastructure, is not a question of getting people off rail and on to roads. I fully accept that case.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Silverlink franchise has been extended for a further two years and the SRA is discussing the detailed terms of the extension with the company. It hopes to make an announcement soon, when the details have been finalised, but it will include some other elements that are not germane to this debate that she has referred to in the past, such as taxi provision and car parking arrangements at Milton Keynes Central station.
I am sure that by the end of the two-year extension period, and in the intervening period between the granting of that extension and the bedding in of the new timetable from September, we will start to get an idea of whether the balance between community and inter-city services is right. We will also be able to see the state of rolling stock, and other issues rightly alluded to by my hon. Friend, a year or so into the extension, and the improvements to that commuter service, if it is to be run by Silverlink. By that stage—when we will be well within the first phase of targets for growth in Milton Keynes—we will be far better placed to understand whether the balance she referred to is right, or whether it needs considering again.
I am more than happy to undertake to keep a keen eye on developments from September onwards, as the new timetable begins and the extension of the Silverlink franchise unfolds—in relation to what the SRA decides. As a Transport Minister, I shall keep a keen eye on the balance of infrastructure and transport modes—to use the jargon—to ensure that the growth that is so welcome in the area, and the economic activity and prosperity that are equally welcome, are in no way encumbered by getting the mix between train and road infrastructure wrong. Those are elements that I shall certainly keep under review.
My hon. Friend might like it if I were to pull the rug from under all developments now, drag Mr. Branson and everyone else in and say, "You will stop at Milton Keynes," and instantly wish into existence new air-conditioned rolling stock for Silverlink so that everything is tickety-boo in the land of milk and honey that is Milton Keynes. I cannot do that, but during the transitional period I shall undertake to keep a strong, watchful eye on the new contract as it beds in, and the new timetable. An area that craves—or perhaps does not quite crave, but certainly welcomes—the sort of growth that fits in entirely with the sustainable communities plan must get the infrastructure commensurate with such growth.

135WH
I would love to give instant answers to my hon. Friend about the extra platform and loop on the fast line from Milton Keynes Central. I shall certainly include that in the watching brief for the SRA and others during the transitional period, as well as the additional turnback line, the Bletchley signals and junctions and the flyover for services to and from Southampton. I will happily plug those factors in, and we shall see what prevails. I understand how those adjustments—which look minor on paper but I am sure come with a billion-pound bill attached—would change things enormously.
Since I have discovered the fact, I would suggest that if the burghers of Northampton had accepted the offer of being on the west coast main line 100 years ago, rather than snottily batting it off, much to the annoyance of subsequent generations in Northampton, we would not be in this position. Let us see where we are. We are undergoing a period of real transition for the whole area, in terms of growth and infrastructure. I take very seriously what both my hon. Friends have said, but we must consider how the new timetable and extended franchise bed in and operate.
All that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West says about new rolling stock, additional carriages and greater capacity is right. We will have to wait until September 2004 and the new timetable to see whether the greater capacity is appropriate.
Dr. Starkey: I am encouraged by the Minister's extremely positive response, but can I press him to ensure that infrastructure issues are discussed at the next meeting of the Milton Keynes and south midlands interregional board, which is chaired by Lord Rooker and includes a representative of the SRA? That would ensure that the issue is fed into that programme as well and therefore can be taken up by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the Minister's Department.
Mr. McNulty: I should have made it clear that there is now a broader brief across the Government—certainly within the DFT and the ODPM—and that we are addressing all these issues in unison. I shall bring those infrastructure matters to the attention not only of the SRA but of my noble Friend Lord Rooker, who can discuss them at his leisure with colleagues who are responsible for the whole of the Milton Keynes and south midlands corridor.
136WH
My hon. Friend will know that although the bulk of any infrastructure changes—she made a point about the M1—are quite rightly he responsibility of the DFT, the ODPM, through the growth area funding for the three growth areas and the Thames gateway, is considering particular infrastructure projects in which it could intervene. Perhaps it could intervene more rapidly and in a more focused way than the DFT, which has nationwide programmes. The ODPM is considering where it can make swift and positive interventions that will assist and complement what the DFT is doing in the normal routine of things. Of course, I shall pass on the points that have been made to Lord Rooker, who will pass them on through the forum that my hon. Friend mentioned.
The points about infrastructure and growth were well made. For this community, along with many communities up and down the west coast main line, after so much grief, a little bit of the glory and the glow that is the new all-singing, all-dancing west coast main line is important. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are talking about the two peak periods. There is not an issue in relation to the off-peak period. We are not about to expunge any trains stopping at Milton Keynes Central, apart from Silverlink commuter trains.
I will take all those elements back with me. I appreciate that my hon. Friend understands that we are in a state of transition, given the contract and the new timetable, but I hope that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will understand the assurances that I have given and will note that as a DFT Minister, not simply as an ex-ODPM Minister, I am keenly aware that transport infrastructure, along with all other forms of infrastructure, social and otherwise, are vital if communities are to grow.
The infrastructure must be put in at the right time for our growth areas to operate and function in a sustainable fashion. The Government are acutely aware of the mistakes of the past, when, a long way down the line, if people were lucky, the infrastructure would follow after the communities had been built. We are trying to reverse that process and at least match infrastructure investment with growth. With those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friend can go away, happy and skipping, back to Milton Keynes. Please can she give a wave when she gets to Harrow and Wealdstone station? It is mine.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.